W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

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

From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:42:44 +0400
To: Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <940271329518564@web115.yandex.ru>
Good option. This would disallow using variable value as property _name_ though.

18.02.2012, 02:35, "Chris Eppstein" <chris@eppsteins.net>:
> 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> 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
>>> </Daniel>
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 22:43:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:11 UTC