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

Re: [css-variables] CSS Variables are a NEW kind of variable

From: Divya Manian <manian@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:25:46 -0700
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBFE43FE.2EBF%manian@adobe.com>
Sorry to flog this dead horse again.

But there has been no satisfactory answer to why variables are still being
defined as a 'property' instead of having a new definition.

Given a variable can be either a property or a proxy for value (at least
in some form right now), I think we should make it more obvious that it is
different from traditional property and not make any reference to an
existing definition of a property.

I suppose this would require change in Core grammar but I think that would
be better than attempting to vaguely contextualize 'variable property'.

On 5/29/12 5:58 PM, "Divya Manian" <manian@adobe.com> wrote:

>Here is what I find weird as a dev about the new syntax:
>1. Var is a variable "property" yet it is invoked as a function. I assert
>then it is not a property and we should not treat it as such. Everything
>about a variable does not sound like a property to me. A Variable seems to
>be a name/value pair of a defined type called Variable. I think it is very
>wrong to shoe-horn this new kind of syntax into an existing 'property' and
>try to reuse the same definition by attaching more prefixes.
>2. I do think the cascading would make it easier for authors to work with
>variables as it provides a scope for vars. This is awesome.
>3. Variables - as defined in spec - take only one argument when they are
>invoked as a function, this begs the question of why they are functions to
>begin with? This is completely contrary to how I have seen functions being
>used. First functions are represented in easier ways by their actionable
>names rather than just generic ones like 'var'. I can even understand
>'calc' but 'var' is just puzzling.
>4. There are two actions that seem to occur one is to set a variable, the
>other is to get it. Both are functions, except one is syntaxed in one way
>(var-*) and the other in a typical CSS function as a value (var()). This
>5. This is why devs want a consistent way to not just set but also get the
>variable. $ would be the most obvious known/tested solution, but I think
>we would be happy with anything at this point that makes CSS less
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 20:26:13 UTC

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