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

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

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 00:10:34 +0200
Message-ID: <F7D72064BA104F9D95D0ED499D41DA7F@FREMYD2>
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
>
> Last, fwiw, while I am generally fine in principle with keeping things 
> short
> I do consider arguing 1-char vs. 2- or 3-character prefixes a complete 
> waste
> of time;
>

Can we please concentrate on the real debate instead of focusing on that 
unproductive prefix bikeshedding?

I don't care about 1 vs 2 vs 3 chars and if you read the thread, you'll see 
nobody argued about that. The point of this thread is that Custom Properties 
are *not* variables and therefore should not use the 'var' prefix as this is 
confusing authors and not representing reality. Use any prefix, but use 
something that actually make sense.




>
> Never mind that this prefix is to be used at definition time i.e. for a 
> given variable
> most of the typing will involve unprefixed references.
>

Not if we want to allow to reference the specified value of any property 
(now or in the future). Chris, Brian and myself both strongly argue it 
should be the case and dropping the prefix for the references is going to 
kill that feature. Tab's proposal to add 'prop()' or 'parent-prop' in the 
future don't make sense because, since custom properties are properties, 
prop(var-property) should actually work. At some point, there's a strong 
inconsistency in the current draft.

Also, dropping the prefix for references makes it harder to rename a 
variable using a text editor (and, as we can see, naming things and renaming 
them is something really frequent in the IT world).

Last but not least, a very large amount of the negative comments made on the 
current draft in the past have been about the inconsitency of the identifier 
representing a custom proprety, which depends on what you are doing 
(defining or referencing the custom property), which is counter-intuitive. 
If you can point me any programming language which use a different 
identifier to refer to a variable when you define it and when you read it, 
please do. 
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 22:10:57 GMT

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