- From: Romain Menke via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 22:48:23 +0000
- To: public-design-tokens-log@w3.org
> But I do not wish to be accused of bringing holleration or hateration to this reposit'ry—I'll let someone else speak up. This dialogue has been very informative for me! > Any design token system is necessarily going to involve a process of back-and-forth iteration until naming schemes are agreed upon; this is just part of that process. A name collision is a build error that requires a dev to tell a designer "hey you did something stupid." But it's not really any different from "hey we spell it 'grey' in our design system, not 'gray'" or anything else that requires back-and-forth. This actually is the issue for me :) By having such a lax id/name format the specification places extra burden on designers, developers and tooling. Not only does an internal convention has to be agreed upon but also a format has to be found that works for everyone and every tool. I don't think this can be avoided completely, but maybe some limits to the name/id are acceptable? -- GitHub Notification of comment by romainmenke Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/design-tokens/community-group/issues/119#issuecomment-1073364517 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 20 March 2022 22:48:24 UTC