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

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

From: Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:18:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CANyEp6Wqi3g=tURHTm9=YNCGAaSERa4Qv-mDHf4Xj9rJQqU0AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Divya Manian <manian@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Bah. please disregard the first paragraph, I meant to delete it after
reformatting my reply.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net> wrote:

>
> I've heard your reasoning and it doesn't satisfy me nor many people whom I
> have discussions with outside of this list. Say it as much as you want, but
> these are not variables. They are different -- they are a new class of
> things.
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've given my reasoning for both the similarity and distinction.
>>
>
> And I'm not satisfied with this reasoning. Lots of people are not. Just
> because variables cascade doesn't make them properties. If they were
> properties, then properties could be read like variables without any issue.
>
>
>> Consistency is an excellent and important quality, but we shouldn't
>> fetishize it.
>
>
> "Fetishize"? Come on, Let's avoid the loaded language.
>
>
>> It's okay for a new class of things to be different in
>> some ways if the difference has a good reason to exist.  That doesn't
>> automatically imply that the small difference makes them a completely
>> new and different thing, and it definitely doesn't automatically imply
>> that the new class should *look* different, syntax-wise, from the
>> older things.
>
>
> I read a lot of words, but I'm not sure you said anything in this
> paragraph. So I don't know how to respond. I don't see any point in arguing
> about language design philosophy in this thread.
>
> Here's why I don't like the property syntax: It gives fine structure to an
> identifier where there needn't be any. the delineation between declaring
> something is a variable and the name of that variable should be syntax, not
> a naming convention.
>
> If it really is a property then make it a property with a -user- prefix
> and then make all properties accessible for read. This is a lovely system.
> it's not variables really. but it is completely consistent. If your going
> to draw a line about what properties can be read as a value, then make this
> delineation formal.
>
> chris
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 23:19:18 GMT

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