- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:50:25 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr. >> @font-face does far more than a simple variable substitution; it >> defines a complex object that CSS can then use transparently. > > I don't buy that. It does define a complex object, but it is referenced > by the name you choose. Giving something a name is all a variable is. > Whether that something is an integer or a grab-bag of properties is > secondary imo. Well, sure. The point is, though, that @font-face doesn't define something that can just be substituted into a property. It defines something special in CSS. Variables just get substituted where they are used. > But I agree that addressing variables in general seems more reasonable > than making something up for colors alone. > > Although in fairness these look more like brushes than colors. Which may > be of value in its own right. I agree; I used the term "paint servers", but overall the <image> concept captures all of this, and it's different than the <color> concept (though you can upgrade a <color> into an <image>). ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 19:51:24 UTC