W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [css-variables] Using $foo as the syntax for variables

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:58:53 -0700
Cc: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <12C37CA3-C559-4564-80D8-FBA07002A485@gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>

On May 22, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> [Marat Tanalin:]
>> BTW, I believe most of real-world websites does not use SASS at all and
>> use regular standard stylesheets instead. So CSS/SASS interoperability
>> should not be an important blocker for CSS to get better.
> I prefer data to belief. And the raw number of sites that use it would not 
> be the only factor anyway. If the 0.01% of sites that use SASS pulled in 200m 
> unique users then I would, on balance, prefer solutions that do not make their
> use of CSS Variables harder than it needs to be. I would at least like us to have 
> that conversation with some of them.
> On the other hand, if too few are using SASS for us to care then there are no obvious 
> usability benefits to matching their conventions and we should move on.
>> If something should be changed, it's SASS based on CSS choices, not CSS
>> based on SASS choices (moreover, as far as I can recall, something like
>> this has been stated by SASS author himself here in www-style list
>> before).
> Who uses which syntax was not my point. My concern was that making CSS and
> Certain frameworks depend on the same syntactical constructs may not be such 
> an obvious win; even from an education standpoint any runtime difference is 
> a possible source of confusion for the people most likely to care about a 
> common syntax: those who already use these frameworks. So the fact that these
> frameworks have some traction is not necessarily a good reason to imitate them. 

Exactly (all of the above). If the reason for using $foo is its familiarity to SASS users, I would say having a similar syntax that works differently is not an advantage at all; its a disadvantage. 

Also, I don't want two completely different syntaxes, depending on if a second argument (default) is needed. If it needs two arguments, then it should use a syntax that uses one or two arguments in a similar way.
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2012 23:59:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:00 UTC