- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 05:29:17 +0000
- To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmx.de>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "manian@adobe.com" <manian@adobe.com>
[Sebastian Zartner:]
>
> > Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > This seems like a reasonable compromise. Maybe shorten the 'define'
> > prefix?
> >
> > :root { def-link-color: blue }
> > a { color: $link-color; }
> >
> > I'm not a huge fan of the prefix-foo syntax either but I think it's
> > better than mucking with the core syntax simply to jam in the parsing
> > of $foo for variable definitions. On the use side, having to wrap
> > prefix() around everything hurts the readability, especially in
> > expressions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Daggett
>
> To me the discussion about how CSS variables look like syntactically is
> out of the scope of this thread. There are other threads related to that.
>
Noted. A syntax was suggested. A counter-proposal followed. You are welcome
to ignore it.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 05:29:51 UTC