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

Re: [css-variables] status ?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:35:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCtgbhLRWBNz73mOFqzGE3hiB=no_b7OhecHNaJt2uzPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
<mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
> It's a shame. Actually _each_ property could be shortened, especially non-shorthand ones, e.g.:
>
>    background-position => $bp
>    font-family => $ff
>    line-height => $lh
>    word-wrap   => $wr
>
> Why not just expand CSS variables to use them anywhere?
> Or at least not just in property values, but in property names too?
>
> What are exact issues with it (if any)?
> Why hardly limit the feature (variables in this case) immediately as fast as it's invented?

Shortening CSS property names isn't a strong use-case.  Names are
usually already as short as possible while still being understandable.
 Shortening them further just makes them harder for others to read.

More importantly, one of the big reasons the CSSWG finally accepted
Variables is because it offers powers that you *cannot do* with a
preprocessor.  Rewriting property names can totally be done in a
preprocessor.  You actually *want* the limitations that a preprocessor
provides here - you *really* don't want a variable you're using for a
property name to change based on the element's position in the tree.
That's just confusing as hell.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 18:36:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:54 GMT