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

* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>I think we should have a syntax that is forward-compatible, such that
>we can make changes that are gracefully ignored in legacy clients.
>Luckily, that's precisely what we have now, so yay!
>
>Attempting to lock the syntax forever is a silly restriction.  It
>restricts our ability to improve the language in some ways.  It
>doesn't *gain* us anything, either, as long as we stay within the
>confines of the forward-compatibility error-parsing rules.  Parsers
>based on the old syntax still work to parse new stuff - they just
>either accept some things that are now "invalid" or trigger
>error-recovery on some new newly "valid" things.  The latter is just
>the day-to-day operation of legacy clients as we add new properties
>and such.
>
>We should reject changes that would break non-trivial amounts of
>existing content.  That's the only reasonable restriction that we can
>operate under; anything else would mean that we're promoting
>theoretical purity over improving the language for everyone else.  I
>refuse to reject a good suggestion with an excuse like "Sorry, your
>change is good and we know that it wouldn't actually cause any
>problems, but some of us decided a few years ago to reject all of
>these types of changes anyway.".

Breaking style sheets and forcing implementers to change their token-
izer every time you discover yet another place where you want to dis-
allow comments is not improving the language in any way.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 01:57:05 UTC