RE: [css4-color] @color Custom Color Keywords

> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]


> 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.

'The point is' that it *is* a substitution for a custom data type for
one particular property. It doesn't make a lot of sense to plug a font 
descriptor anywhere other than through font-family but that doesn't make 
it any less of a name-based substitution. Extending the pattern to another 
data type is thus not at all illogical. 

Except that this one plugs in a lot of places and the proposal naturally
takes advantage of the extra level of indirection to add all kinds of new 
capabilities. Which may create its own problems but I like the idea of
extending existing data types into richer objects. 

> 
> 
> > 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>).

Right. While the desire to 'solve' variables generally means this proposal
should depend on a Variables module for its syntax, I'd rather talk about 
the capabilities and use-cases being suggested.

So let's keep the generic variable syntax concern separate from the ability
to define complex color/brush objects.

Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 20:37:12 UTC