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

[Divya Manian:]
> 
> On 5/30/12 7:04 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com> 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.
> 
> We cant have two different 'prefix'es. It is just one to refer to a
> variable. The very idea of mixing up a function with a name('define') is
> completely confusing.
> 
What could make a verb in a property name 'completely confusing'? We already 
have verbs in properties; though they are usually prefixed by some module 
shorthand (text-align, flex-pack...) this is only necessary to indicate that 
these properties only apply in those contexts. If the property applies broadly
then it can and should certainly start with a verb (the recent css3-align 
proposal [1] comes to mind, ).

As there is no shortage of languages that do differentiate between the declaration
and use of variables I very much doubt it would be confusing to differentiate them
in CSS. (Though, again, taste will vary as to what the 'right' declaration/delimiter 
combo should be)

But if we must opine about confusion, I would find it at least odd for CSS to start
using a prefix made famous by vendor extensions to IETF protocols just as the latter
is now deprecating the practice. [2]

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-align/
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-05

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 17:46:01 UTC