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

Re: [css-variables] Putting it all toegether (syntax)

From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 04:01:02 +0400
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <632731338854462@web7e.yandex.ru>
05.06.2012, 03:02, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
> <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
>>  I tend to consider repeating prefix (be it `my-` or any other) when using a variable somewhat redundant.
>
> That redundancy often makes it easier to see relationships.

How does the redundancy makes it easier than nonredundancy?

> That @variables rule is exactly identical to a normal style rule in
> mechanics.  You avoid the need to put a prefix on your var names, but
> in return are forced to put a prefix on your selector (the @variables
> token and the parens), and probably have to repeat selectors that
> you're already using to apply normal styling properties.

We are forced to repeat selectors multiple, multiple times again and again everyday for more than 10 years, so apparently it's not considered a serious issue by CSS WG. And repeating selector in @variables rule is not something that could make situation any worse.

For the rest, it may (or may not) make sense to consider using @variables at-rule inside regular rules:

    .example {
        @variables {
            link-color: red;
        }
    }

    .example A {color: $link-color; }

> In order for
> this to result in less typing you have to define at least 4 (or more,
> depending on the size of the repeated selector) variable properties
> per block (if you're measuring against the "var-" prefix) or 15+ per
> block (if you're measuring against the "$" prefix).

Less typing in general is not the point of my proposal at all. My proposal's goal is to avoid prefix when defining variable and avoid ambiguity/nonextensibility if it will be decided (undesirably) to use $ token for defining variables too (not just for using variable's value).

We could easily use more short `@var` instead of `@variables` though.

> It also makes it less clear that variables act like every other
> property, because their definitions now live in a special at-rule
> instead of a normal style rule alongside the other properties.

It's questionable what is less clear: `var-` (or `my-`, `x-`, etc.) prefix or `variable: value` pair inside @-rule. Latter is much more intuitive IMO. (Please try to not answer _immediately_ after reading.)

>>  Also, using value in the my proposal has $ token-mark while defining value does not have $ (in the same way as recent François's proposal, but with no prefix). This clearly separates defining variable and its using.
>
> The separation is implicit already on whether the var names is on the
> left or the right of the colon.

An explicit thing is generally more clear then an implicit one.

Thanks.
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 00:01:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT