W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css-variables] Last call comments

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:18:41 +0100
Message-ID: <51235181.8060603@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: www-style@w3.org, francois.remy.dev@outlook.com, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
This thread, just ahead of an LC period, goes nowhere. As far as I am
concerned, the commenter still disagrees with the editor and the editor
still rejects commenter's suggested changes. This heads towards a red
line in a Disposition of Comments, something we _must_ avoid.

Seen from here, and if I try to summarize the too high number of emails
sent on this topic:

   - François thinks the proposed (in spec) syntax is bad and harmful
     to the future of CSS. He proposes another syntax that could allow
     harmonization between CSS Variables and existing functional
     notations in CSS.

   - Tab disagrees with both the change and the rationale behind it

I tend to agree with Tab here for the following reasons:

1. François's syntax counter-proposal seems to me ugly and inconsistent
    with CSS common practice. The naming issue has been discussed inside
    CSS WG and a compromise between all Members was reached. As with all
    compromises, this is not perfect, but this is readable,
    understandable and meaningful; in other terms: acceptable.

2. Some of the use cases contained in the original message [1] seem
    to me out of scope, namely the one contained in section 2.

3. I don't see and don't understand why implementation of var() calls
    prevent us from having something similar to François's get() in
    the future. The explanations about compile-time vs. runtime seems
    to be based on wrong implementation assumptions and going nowhere.

With my co-chairmanship hat on, I declare commenter's change proposal is
rejected for the 3 reasons above. François, I understand you still
disagree with the spec as is. My question is (and this is a yes or no
question): can you live with it or do you plan to maintain your
objection?

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/DUB405-EAS265BA722C7766549B330F72A5050@phx.gbl

</Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 10:19:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT