- From: Donnie D'Amato via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 02:30:13 +0000
- To: public-design-tokens-log@w3.org
I don't know what's odd about using Sass as the archetype, considering these are _design_ tokens, meaning they have roots in design. This makes them closer to the ecosystem of style as opposed to behavior as Javascript does. This was my comment regarding DOM manipulation; it has nothing to do with examples. The JSON is merely the transportation layer between systems, as this isn't limited to a JS ecosystem. Systems could ingest tokens in Python, Rust, or whatever. It's either JSON or XML as options in this case, and I have great confidence that no one wants to parse XML again. So, it's inaccurate to say JSON is strictly in the realm of Javascript. I don't have any details about folks disliking jQuery because of the namespace convention it used. However, I'm not going to discuss jQuery any further because it's really a tangent in this conversation. If you are really afraid of clashing, use the `jQuery` namespace instead of the `$`; problem solved. My comment about the quality of specialness certainly involves educating oneself about the schema, most likely through documentation. Without the prefix, I can imagine someone could accidentally remove expected keys because the file would look like unstructured data, as none of the keys look all that special. Personally, I'd use more caution if I saw keys with `$` prefix. -- GitHub Notification of comment by ddamato Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/design-tokens/community-group/issues/240#issuecomment-2290388916 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2024 02:30:14 UTC