- From: Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:12:22 +0200
- To: "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai wrote: > This was as far as I got Friday afternoon at the F2F: > http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/specs/constants/ > > It's not very complete, but I think it captures the important points > in the discussion. The discussion in the meeting notes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0075.html was kind of brief regarding some of the technical problems with the original CSS Vars suggestion. I think Dave's implementation with changeable/scriptable variables is far more elegant than a parse- time solution where the constants are no longer visible after parsing. I agree that many of the mentioned use cases will be solved by the parse-time suggestion, but I also think we will regret not going the whole way with this construct. So, could you or anyone else elaborate a little on the main technical problems? As I have understood from what Dave has mentioned earlier there was no problem implementing the actual internal book-keeping of the variables, but problems would rather be interfacing with CSSOM? It would be nice to look into this a bit further before dismissing the full solution and going into parse-time macros. L. David Baron wrote: > (Including URLs makes it much easier for other people to follow the > discussion; it means that understanding the message doesn't require > the significant amount of digging through archives that you did in > order to write the message.) Actually I did not have to spend any significant amount of time to locate the information as (subscribing to mail) I had saved this particular mail in my CSS vars mail folder. But you are right that I could have dug up the public link for this message to make it easier for the readers. Point taken. Best regards Mike Wilson
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2008 06:13:17 UTC