Re: [css-variables] the new ED for CSS Variables

What's wrong with using $?

 :root { $accentColor: green; }
  h1 { color: $accentColor; }

Chris

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>wrote:

> Maybe we could replace 'data' by 'var' to avoid confusion with HTML5 data
> attributes. It's also shorter to write :-)
>
>   :root { var-accentColor: green; }
>   h1 { color: var(accentColor); }
>
> But if it's going to make adoption/standardization slower, I prefer to
> stay with 'data'. I can't wait to announce that CSS variables finally work
> in all modern browsers.
>
> François
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine----- From: Brian Kardell
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:33 PM
> To: Daniel Glazman
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css-variables] the new ED for CSS Variables
>
>
> I agree, I've said in the past that I think this is the best idea for
> "variables" in CSS that I've seen put forward.
>
> Minor editorial type comments on the current state of the draft:
>
> I mentioned this a few months ago, but I would like to reiterate:  I
> think it is definitely worth going to some measure to ensure an
> understanding of the actual relationship between data properties in
> CSS and data properties in HTML as I can easily see confusion here
> with people doing something like:
>
>   <div data-foo="something">
>
> and then expecting to be able to say:
>
>   div{
>         property:  data(foo);
>   }
>
> Or vice versa.
>
> The table in section #2 just says "see prose) for a description, but
> the relevant bit it probably small enough to fit, "anything that is
> valid according to the value production in the CSS Core Grammar."
> Likewise, in the same table (or at least in the prose) it is probably
> worth mentioning that the data-* would have to be "anything that is
> valid according to the identifier production in the CSS  Core
> Grammar".
>
>
> I know that this has come up in other threads recently too, but - is
> there some rationale for splitting this into two _very_ small drafts,
> one that deals with the CSS part, and the other that deals with the
> CSSOM extensions part?  It seems that the later is less done and given
> the state of CSSOM it could hold things up needlessly.  I agree though
> that access through CSSOM would be good - but that almost seems like a
> whole separate topic and a whole different level of complexity at this
> point...
>
>
> -Brian
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Daniel Glazman
> <daniel.glazman@disruptive-**innovations.com<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> As I said a while ago in www-style, I think the proposal for CSS
>> Variables in [1] is just brilliant. This is by far the simplest,
>> the best integrated into CSS, mechanism we could probably think of.
>>
>> Kudos to the authors. I want it in all browsers and I want it there
>> as soon as possible. And - modulo the fact I have to read and reread
>> the proposal in greater details - I want it as is.
>>
>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-**variables/#cssom-cssvariable<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-variables/#cssom-cssvariable>
>>
>> </Daniel>
>>
>>
>
>