Re: New CSS variables syntax in latest WebKit

We're responsible for recovering from typos in the same way other  
browsers do (and the way we used to before supporting CSS variables). :)

dave

On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> You're saying Wekit is now responsible for author typos? With a typo  
> the author will not get what they expected regardless of this  
> proposal.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 22, 2008, at 12:46 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
>
>> We've already had a regression in WebKit from the $ syntax.  People  
>> make $ typos in stylesheets apparently. :(
>>
>> I think the function syntax is the least likely to cause backwards  
>> compatibility issues.
>>
>> dave
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com 
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (1) -webkit-var(foo)
>>>>> (2) =foo=
>>>>> (3) $foo
>>>>> One concern about using a symbol to represent a variable is that  
>>>>> there is no way to vendor-prefix it.  Then again, just using a  
>>>>> symbol like = or $ looks nicer than the ugly "-webkit-var"  
>>>>> notation.
>>>>
>>>> It also looks terribly more dangerous because some server modules
>>>> already use such syntax for macro expansion on the server's side...
>>>> Honestly, I think 2 and 3 are not a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> </Daniel>
>>>
>>> They use the equal sign notation? I thought that was fairly unique  
>>> (which was also one of the criticisms about it).
>>>
>>> Even with the dollar sign, is macro expansion really that fragile?  
>>> What if you want to represent a dollar amount in your HTML?  
>>> Wouldn't you just escape the $ in both cases? Unexpanded macros  
>>> would never make it into the final rendered css, right?
>>>
>>

Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 19:59:18 UTC