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

Seems like you're blowing things a bit out of proportion here. Actually, by
keeping variables in a new namespace, you diminish the expected amount of
review and impact. As things stand, by conflating the syntax with
properties, we should be _more_ concerned that we are introducing a
conflict.

Chris

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Arron Eicholz
<Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>wrote:

> On Friday, February 17, 2012 2:43 PM Chris Eppstein wrote:
> >Variables are a new primitive. Seems justified.
>
> Altering the core grammar takes a great deal of investigation. An
> alteration to the core grammar requires us to analyze all 400+ existing,
> proposed and suggested properties, including SVG properties, (there are
> actually 606 by my last count, but who is keeping track). We must determine
> if any of them have to be updated, altered or changed to account for this
> new primitive. Don't forget to multiply all the values that all those
> properties take and how they will be affected. This is an extensive amount
> of work and who knows what we might miss when looking at all the values
> that those properties take.
>
> Now take into account the OM and Javascript side of things and even how
> frameworks interact. Will a '$' interfere or makes things confusing? My
> guess is it will, at the very least it will make things confusing. It also
> wouldn't shock me if it broke a Javascript library somewhere.
>
> In the end the cost is very high for changing the core grammar. Going with
> 'data-' or 'var-' really doesn't have much impact in this regard and would
> be the best solution to move things quickly.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Arron Eicholz
>
>
> >
> >On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
> wrote:
> >> What's wrong with using $?
> >>
> >>  :root { $accentColor: green; }
> >>   h1 { color: $accentColor; }
> >It violates the Core Grammar, unfortunately.  That doesn't make it
> >impossible to do, it just means we need a pretty good justification
> >for it.
>
>