- From: Donnie D'Amato via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:57:26 +0000
- To: public-design-tokens-log@w3.org
I'm reasonably sure the `$` convention used here is based on the [variable naming convention originating in Sass](https://sass-lang.com/documentation/variables/). The jQuery usage is less relevant, as the entire library was meant to exist under that one namespace. Design tokens are more closely related to styling variables than DOM manipulation. I'm not familiar with RxJS observables, but there will be plenty of `$` among other languages, just like there is plenty of usage of different characters for other reasons. I don't know how the RxJS ecosystem clashes with what is expected to be used in this specification. Regardless of the history, what I find beneficial in the `$` prefix here has to do with JSON's restrictions. While yes it would be great to have all of these enhancements to help the developer experience, the core of the specification is expected to align with JSON's limitations, AFAICT. We have used `_` to denote private because the language used doesn't support the concept of private (until it does). This isn't necessarily meant for someone to edit in an IDE but for systems to ingest and transform into styles. Further, I find that the `$` provides more clarity as a "special" field than if special keys were to exist without needing to dive into documentation. It should raise the question, "Why do these keys have this prefix?" as opposed to if keys look like any other keys. However, given that you've raised the idea, I'd like to know what you suggest as alternatives, knowing the limitations. -- GitHub Notification of comment by ddamato Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/design-tokens/community-group/issues/240#issuecomment-2286325605 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2024 13:57:27 UTC