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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 05:29:17 +0000
To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmx.de>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "manian@adobe.com" <manian@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290A359053@TK5EX14MBXC262.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Sebastian Zartner:]
> 
> > Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >
> > > Not to prove that everyone's preference is someone else's ugly but I
> > > can't stand the x-convention. If we're going to have a prefix why
> > > not make it something readable. For instance:
> > >
> > >         :root { define-link-color: blue }
> > >         a { color: $link-color }
> > >
> > > ...is imo a reasonable balance: terse at the point of use and very
> > > explicit at the point of declaration since there should be many of
> > > the former for each of the latter.
> >
> > This seems like a reasonable compromise.  Maybe shorten the 'define'
> > prefix?
> >
> >   :root { def-link-color: blue }
> >   a { color: $link-color; }
> >
> > I'm not a huge fan of the prefix-foo syntax either but I think it's
> > better than mucking with the core syntax simply to jam in the parsing
> > of $foo for variable definitions. On the use side, having to wrap
> > prefix() around everything hurts the readability, especially in
> > expressions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Daggett
> 
> To me the discussion about how CSS variables look like syntactically is
> out of the scope of this thread. There are other threads related to that.
> 
Noted. A syntax was suggested. A counter-proposal followed. You are welcome
to ignore it.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 05:29:51 GMT

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