- From: Bramus via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 20:44:05 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> And to be clear, I have a somewhat strong dislike against option 2a due to it introducing an inconsistency in naming. I brought this up in the call when we resolved on adding `light-dark()` and would have preferred `light-dark-color()` back then, as it would have allowed `light-dark()` to be used for multiple types of values. But that ship has sailed … I think option 3 is the strategy I would prefer. It reminds me of `attr()` that can take a type and fall back to the default CSS string when omitted. Also, FWIW: with custom functions nowadays it’s really easy to write your own `--light-dark()` that works with any type of value. See https://brm.us/--light-dark() for example. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bramus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12513#issuecomment-3429489682 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2025 20:44:05 UTC