Hello, On 2011-02-06, at 11:55, David Woolley wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> never agree on how it was supposed to work. This sucks for authors, >> particularly as the rise of preprocessing frameworks like SASS have >> shown just how popular and useful variables are in designing and >> theming webpages and webapps, both large and small. I and some other > > The fact that this can be done by pre-processors is actually a counter-argument to including it in CSS. The pro arguments are: - preprocessors are not documents but applications. You cannot "simply" put them on an USB stick or transfer them from one server any other server. - css code size is reduced dramatically by modules/mix-ins (not so much variables imho). This "benefit" vanishes after SASS/LASS/LESS compiles things. -> Client side modules/mix-ins and variables can reduce code size (less traffic) and improve maintainability (less cost) by a huge factor. So why is it a counter argument for(against?) including into CSS just because it "can" be done by pre-processors? The counter argument I see is backwards compatbility. CSS always or mostly rendered fine on older clients. That means a property is either evaluated or ignored. If a property is known but the variable feature is not, what happens then? How do real world clients interpret that?Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 11:25:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:55 UTC