Re: [css-variables] Custom properties using the 'var' prefix? (Issue 1, !important)

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 AM, François REMY <> wrote:
>> Most of us don’t understand why, when ‘Variables properties’ were renamed
>> into ‘Custom properties’ in the spec, the spec itself wasn’t renamed ‘CSS
>> Custom Properties’ like our proposal is.
> Please don't imply that you speak for the majority of authors.  I
> understand that you feel strongly about the naming issues, but from my
> own unsolicited feedback, lots of people seem perfectly fine with the
> current naming.  (I was expecting a *lot* more vitriol in my last
> Variables thread, but got virtually none.  Nearly everyone that
> commented on the name said that it made sense to them.)

Then they probably didn't understand the concept behind it. When I
first read about it I also thought CSS variables would be the right
name for this spec. Reading more about it clarified that they are not
really variables.
I agree with Brian to create a poll for that shortly explaining the
main concept of them, proposing the different possible prefixes plus a
little description for what they may imply.
E.g. personally I disagree with "var-" (they are not variables) as
well as "my-" (they don't have to be mine but can come from another
stylesheet). Some of them are abbreviated or too long, what I also
don't like. So "user-" is therefore way better in my eyes. Maybe also

>> This specification uses the 'my' prefix for custom properties on purpose for
>> custom properties for three main reasons:
>> It's the prefix that developers used naturally, for years, when they were
>> using or asking custom properties. If necessary, I can find a lot of samples
>> of that.
> I have never seen this.  It would be kind of weird, actually, since
> Perl is the only language I know of that uses "my" in reference to
> variables.

I also didn't, but of course there are some developers preferring
"my-" as prefix. Though giving examples for that doesn't mean that the
majority would like this prefix.

>> It does clearly explain the status of the property: the property is yours,
>> you can use it for anything you would like to and the browser won't mess up
>> with your code.
>> Meanwhile, it's a very short prefix that's not cumbersome to type.
>> Beside this, this specification also replace the 'var' and 'parent-var'
>> functional notations with the more informative 'use()' and 'inherit()'
>> functions. It’s interesting to note that ‘color: inherit(color)’ has the
>> same behavior as ‘color: inherit’ in our proposal.
> I challenge the assertion that use() is "more informative".  It seems
> roughly the same as var() (though I'd argue that var() is actually
> better, since you immediately know what it's used for).

According to my choice above use() would make a little more sense.
Though it might not be the best solution. So I believe the usage of
custom properties could need another poll.

I really argue for letting users decide about this. Important for this
is of course that they read and understood the current spec.


Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 04:42:20 UTC