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

On Sep 7, 2012 5:04 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <> wrote:
> [Tab Atkins Jr.:]
> >
> > That's quite unrelated, though.  The x- prefix is being phased out by
> > IETF because it was used like a vendor prefix, except for all vendors,
> > which means that it got stuck on the web even more often than -webkit-.
> > The proposed use of x- as the variables prefix is much closer to the use
> > in Web Components, as Francois points out, where it's just a way to
> > grab some cheap syntax space that we can reasonably promise we won't
> > to use in the future.
> >
> Precisely: it is unrelated hence the importance of not using a convention
> that is already familiar to many as a vendor extension mechanism. In other
> words, the main argument given for using x- at the time it was proposed
> that it looked like the IETF's X-. Given that this use-case is unrelated
> the IETF is phasing out X- I find the risk of confusion wholly
> It's not like there is a shortage of other options.
I see your case, but I don't buy it.  If people are going to draw a
correlation, it isn't generally going to be to strict IETF standards (I
would wager big money that the vast majority of css authors don't even know
about IETF, much less their use of x).  I think they are far more likely to
draw a relation to <x- in html or data-* attributes.  X is easy to
understand as an extension or unknown quantity.

All that said, I totally agree that if you see no problem with c- for
custom or a- for author or u- for user (I think that is wrong, tab pointed
out rightly I think that user means something else) or whatever.

How about a compromise:  xx-*  :)

Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 21:21:25 UTC