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

Re: [css-variables] Custom properties using the 'var' prefix? (Issue 1, !important)

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:36:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jd3kqJEk5VrbdkQ4twvKS0+HsT==BCiEGqXsCBS87w3jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> [François REMY:]
>> If you correctly remember, I was proposing the 'x' prefix beforehand but
>>Sylvain said he didn't like it, which is why I did all this research in
>>first place. If we can agree on the 'x' prefix, I would not mind at all.
>>
> That someone does not like something is irrelevant; why they don't is all
> that matters. In this case, the x- prefixed was modeled after the IETF's
> X- prefix which the IETF is phasing out. I don't think we should use
> patterns others are getting rid of for good reasons, so I objected.

Sylvain, can you explain a little more why you feel this way?  All of
the prefixes being discussed would work the same way.  People are
familiar with x-, it's short, in this case - it kind of makes sense.
I experience a little dissonance in my head with the idea that if we
called it c-* that would be fine, but x-* is somehow problematic.  It
looks very likely like we will wind up with <x-* tags in HTML now
after much back and forth as well.  I'm not pressing hard for it
myself, pick any letter you want if that discussion is going to hold
things up - just asking whether there is a really good reason you can
explain to discount x-*?
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 15:37:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT