- From: Divya Manian <manian@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:58:12 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Here is what I find weird as a dev about the new syntax: 1. Var is a variable "property" yet it is invoked as a function. I assert then it is not a property and we should not treat it as such. Everything about a variable does not sound like a property to me. A Variable seems to be a name/value pair of a defined type called Variable. I think it is very wrong to shoe-horn this new kind of syntax into an existing 'property' and try to reuse the same definition by attaching more prefixes. 2. I do think the cascading would make it easier for authors to work with variables as it provides a scope for vars. This is awesome. 3. Variables - as defined in spec - take only one argument when they are invoked as a function, this begs the question of why they are functions to begin with? This is completely contrary to how I have seen functions being used. First functions are represented in easier ways by their actionable names rather than just generic ones like 'var'. I can even understand 'calc' but 'var' is just puzzling. 4. There are two actions that seem to occur one is to set a variable, the other is to get it. Both are functions, except one is syntaxed in one way (var-*) and the other in a typical CSS function as a value (var()). This grates. 5. This is why devs want a consistent way to not just set but also get the variable. $ would be the most obvious known/tested solution, but I think we would be happy with anything at this point that makes CSS less confusing.
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 01:02:30 UTC