- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:29:49 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>, public-houdini@w3.org
On 30/07/2015 11:08, Chris Lilley wrote:
> To my mind, the resistance to things like selectors for attributes is
> caused by several of:
>
> - people worried this ends up in CSS-the-language, or
> - people worried about spending time on things that css-the-language
> doesn't need
Yes, exactly. About the first item above, they are right, this IS about
adding stuff to CSS-the-language, not CSS-the-styling-mechanism.
We seem to consider the proposed GCS as a "superset" of CSS. I tend to
disagree. We need to shape GCS as the underlying layer CSS is built upon
and to allow other languages using a similar syntax to see the light.
CSS should then be seen as one example of GCS-based languages only.
So I think the GCS name is badly chosen:
- it's not all about cascading languages (my STTS proposal was not
cascading). A language based on it could even be all about at-rules
and not using Selectors at all or weird things like that.
- it's not about generalizing things, it's about finding the lowest
common denominator to an existing technology and future ones
I would prefer something like Declarative Sheets or Declarative
Statement Sheets (with it convenient acronym DSS...).
</Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:30:17 UTC