- From: Christian Roth <roth@visualclick.de>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:35:42 +0100
- To: "www-style Mailing List" <www-style@w3.org>
Slalomsk8er@solnet.ch wrote:
> .foo {
> if(.foo.border-width != 0) /* != is the not equal operator */
> { width: view-width / 2 - .foo.border-width * 2; }
> else
> { width: view-width / 2; }
> }
This would even pass current browsers (being ignored) with a small change
in syntax: You MUST end the if() { } else { } construct with a semicolon
(property separator) like this (at least if other properties or
constructs follow):
if() { } else { };
-----------------^
Current parsing error handling rules would make this pass current
conforming implementations (unless I have overlooked something...).
>>> Some constants and variables, like window content size.
>> This has been discussed before, it will probably never happen.
>
>This is sad, It is often sayed how mighty CSS is, as a programmer I
>realy question such statements.
Since named constants are an authoring side only issue, this can be
overcome with a decent authoring tool that offers extended syntax in your
source and generates a fully calculated stylesheet at publishing time
(call it a "CSS pre-processor"). I agree that such tools are quite
useful, since constants are what I personally miss the most, especially
for custom colors and indent/margin/padding values.
Variables are a whole different issue and require client support, of course.
Regards, Christian.
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 14:37:54 UTC