- From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 00:26:49 +0400
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>,Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>,"www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Unfortunately, using preprocessors is not always possible. For example, on Windows/IIS platform with a custom CGI executable without ability to use any script language, it's completely not an option. Also, using preprocessor does not provide ability to make CSS more compact (using Gzip not always possible, and is problematic under IIS6 and lower in particular). Moreover, there is nothing _bad_ in having preprocessor features available natively. Using preprocessor for feature that can be easily and reasonably implemented natively would be unneeded overhead. 25.05.2012, 23:34, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>: > [Tab Atkins Jr.:] > >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com >> <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: >>> It's a shame. Actually _each_ property could be shortened, especially >> non-shorthand ones, e.g.: >>> background-position => $bp >>> font-family => $ff >>> line-height => $lh >>> word-wrap => $wr >>> >>> Why not just expand CSS variables to use them anywhere? >>> Or at least not just in property values, but in property names too? >>> >>> What are exact issues with it (if any)? >>> Why hardly limit the feature (variables in this case) immediately as >> fast as it's invented? >> >> Shortening CSS property names isn't a strong use-case. Names are usually >> already as short as possible while still being understandable. >> Shortening them further just makes them harder for others to read. >> >> More importantly, one of the big reasons the CSSWG finally accepted >> Variables is because it offers powers that you *cannot do* with a >> preprocessor. Rewriting property names can totally be done in a >> preprocessor. You actually *want* the limitations that a preprocessor >> provides here - you *really* don't want a variable you're using for a >> property name to change based on the element's position in the tree. >> That's just confusing as hell. > > Defining one's own custom shorthands for property names is definitely > a pre-processing use-case; and if minifying names during coding is a > priority then I suspect you wouldn't want to stop there e.g. you'd want > to do this in your JS code as well.
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 20:27:20 UTC