- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:20:21 +0200
- To: "Ojan Vafai" <ojan@chromium.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 23 May 2012 19:32:50 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2) >>> It is less disruptive of the grammar >> >> This doesn't seem like a big deal to me. The edge cases where this >> matters >> are again not worth the cost. > > Yes, it's a small matter for implementations. > > More importantly, this is prioritizing theoretical purity and minor > implementation convenience over author convenience, which is the wrong > ordering of constituencies. I am not at all worried about the minor inconvenience caused to the browser vendors. I am worried about the bazillion of little tools out there that have a good have of choking on the $ syntax. >>> 4) Because SASS variables and CSS variables behave differently, >>> I can reasonably see authors wanting to use either, or >>> even wanting to use both in the same style sheet. Using the same >>> syntax is asking for trouble. >> >> I think this is worth considering, but this doesn't convince me that we >> should make the API we ship less convenient for authors coding directly >> to >> the platform. > > More importantly, one of the maintainers of the SASS language > explicitly told us not to worry about this issue, because SASS will > change around CSS. He absolutely does *not* want us to make decisions > about CSS syntax based on avoiding confusion with SASS. I > respectfully suggest that we listen to him about his own project. ^_^ If $ was the only way to get variables, I'd be grateful about his statement that he'll just fix is stuff if we break it. But as I think $ isn't much better, and in my mind worse than var-, I don't see the point of breaking his stuff in the first place. - Florian
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 07:20:57 UTC