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

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

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:56:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jc_UvQgRpkXKDQ29_6YEAw1gVHCUaGA-A-UA1wRuaF6zQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
Again, I could be wrong here but it feels like you are pointing out the
distinction just like I was.  Some of these ideas really "fit" in css...
Tab's proposal does.  It is great.  I love it.

Other things, like mixins, seem like simple macro/text ideas.. Still useful
and cool, but different.  Why try to shoehorn them into CSS... Rather,
decide if putting that kind of capability in the client is good and useful
(I kind of think so for reasons chris mentioned and some others), and if
so, just develop it and call it something else.
On Feb 18, 2012 6:40 AM, "François REMY" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> A preprocessor only need to be ran one time per file version. CSS
> stylesheet won't change each time a client connect. At least, they should
> not.
> The true reason is that CSS Variables may vary on the client (based on
> script, alternate stylesheets, usestylesheets...) and in function of the
> location in the document, things that a preprocessor can't handle.
> -----Message d'origine----- From: Daniel Glazman
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 12:22 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css-variables] the new ED for CSS Variables
> Le 18/02/12 01:16, Brian Kardell a écrit :
>  Rather than worry about dramatic changes to CSS to support things that
>> actually ARE handled really well by a preprocessor already, why not just
>> keep it as a preprocessor?  I think its an easier case to make, even to
> For at least one good reason: moving the burden to the CLIENT decreases
> the burden on the SERVER...
> </Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 11:57:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC