- From: Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:50:11 -0800
- To: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
- Cc: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANyEp6VpB6pPvUas2nd7C15ePkENoSJY+P3Aww6OTTLfJZByOQ@mail.gmail.com>
I'd also like to keep a long view here with respect to other features like mixins and user-defined functions. The current var-based syntax seems very unnatural in those contexts. Chris On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > 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. > > > > Is "move things quickly" really the priority? It seems like "have the > most intuitive syntax" would be a more important goal. Of course, > "don't break the web" is probably a more important goal still :) > > FWIW, if we were to keep the currently proposed notation (more or > less), "var-" seems better than "data-" to me; I too see the potential > confusion between this and data- attributes in HTML, and data- doesn't > scream "variable" or "value" to me. > > -- Dirk >
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 23:50:42 UTC