On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote: > | You may want to check the draft. I switched the terminology to > | "custom properties" a week or two ago. > > Then, it doesn't make sense to use the 'var' prefix. I don't think that follows. > | It's a tradeoff. You may have to do a second search/replace while > | renaming, but you have to type an additional four characters all of > | the time. "var(var-foo)" just seems... redundant. > > use(my-property) and val(x-property) doesn't feel redundant at all. It's still using a function *and* a prefix, when you only need one. That's not necessarily bad, but still. > | If we do get arbitrary property referencing, we'll want another > | function, like value() or prop() or something. > > This is seriously discutable. For example, a "native" property doesn't > necesarrily exist and can be "invalid", too. > > Sample: > > { > width: use(parent.flex-length, 100%); > // what if flex-length doesn't exist?; > } No, native properties always exist, and are always valid. If you don't specify a property on an element, it gets converted to its initial or inherited value at specified-value time. ~TJReceived on Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:00:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:19 UTC