RE: [css-variables] CSS Variables are a NEW kind of variable

On May 30, 2012 10:06 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> [Divya Manian:]
> >
> > On 5/30/12 12:59 AM, "François REMY" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > >For instance, if I was responsible of the spec, I think I would have
> > >renamed "variables" into "user-defined properties".
> > >
> > >I completely agree. I also would prefer something like "just use an
> > >identifier".
> > >
> > >    :root { x-link-color: blue }
> > >    a { color: x-link-color }
> > >
> > >If this is not possible to do, we shall need an introductory token,
> > >which $ can be. However, even with "x-", the var() function should be
> > >kept to provide a default (as second argument) for when the variable is
> > >invalid.
> >
> > This is infinitely better than what has been proposed so far. I think
> > defining them as user-defined property also makes a lot of sense.
X-prefix
> > would work for me too! I am not beholden to the $ sign.
> >
> Not to prove that everyone's preference is someone else's ugly but I can't
> stand the x-convention. If we're going to have a prefix why not make it
something
> readable. For instance:
>
>        :root { define-link-color: blue }
>        a { color: $link-color }
>
> ...is imo a reasonable balance: terse at the point of use and very
explicit at
> the point of declaration since there should be many of the former for
each of
> the latter.
>
I think there is lots of room for exactly what the prefix should be, the
more imprtant issue I think is whether there is wide agreement on the
general concept that this is more appropriate/clear since a few days ago
there was generally speaking a lot of disagreement, confusion and disarray
with $ and what it means to be a variable in css, left right agreement, etc.