- From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:57 +0400
- To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- Cc: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>,Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>,Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com>,"www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
30.08.2012, 19:40, "François REMY" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>: > | No damning argument, only that it's basically exactly the same as the > | current spec, but with very slightly different names, and I like my > | names better. ^_^ > > 1) Most people agree we should not call "CSS Variables" variables > anymore. Using 'var' is not only a bad idea but doesn't make sense. > "Variables properties" are not variables, they are properties. A variable > doesn't belong to an object, where 'css custom properties' belong to the > element they apply on. Calling them 'variables' is a non-sense, they are not > any variabler than other properties. Honestly, I think you're the only one > still defending the 'variable' terminology. Actually, CSS variables are quite variable in terms of their values can be specified once and then overrided/altered. However terminology is not key factor here, what's more important is how variables are used on syntax level. > 3) If we want to support the use of any property in > 'use()'/'val()'/'var()' or 'parent-var()'/'...' we will have a problem if we > didn't included the 'my-'/'x-'/'user-'/'var-' prefix from start. We could just use different functions: `var(example)` to access value of variable that has been declared via `var-example` property, and something like `prop(propName)` to access properties by their full names (without stripping any prefixes like `var-`). For example, we have such special-casing for `data-`-prefixed attributes with `element.dataset` DOM-object compared with accessing regular attributes via `element.getAttribute()` method.
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 16:12:39 UTC