- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:03:06 -0700
- To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com> wrote: > 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. If they follow CSS's error-recovery rules, they're fine. They'll ignore up to the next semi-colon. If the don't follow the rules that have been in the spec for a decade+, it's kinda their fault. I'd be sympathetic to decent breakage, but I'd want it shown before I try to work around it, rather than avoiding something on the suspicion that *maybe* it'll break some unknown quantity of tools. I'm also generally okay with new stuff not working in old tools, as long as it's not something that people don't have much of a choice about using. Breaking a browser is a bad thing. Breaking one particular CSS parsing library used by a syntax-highlighting script, only when the author uses variables, is less bad. >>>> 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. Okay, then we're debating personal taste. Since I obliquely pointed to this thread in Twitter, I've received nearly a dozen people saying they're excited, and not a single negative voice (I'm sure they're out there, but I haven't heard them yet). I also know that others within the WG are cool with this (some people mentioned this syntax when I first presented the modern draft at TPAC), so it's not even a "WG versus authors" divide. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 17:04:01 UTC