On Apr 14, 2013 8:43 AM, "Anselm Hannemann" <info@anselm-hannemann.com> wrote: > I can understand the implication of the draft but don't like it. It can confuse users as it no longer is the same terminology. We have actually put variants in front of real "not list following" devs and i see no data to back up that concern. If anything, I have seen the inverse, though at least some of that was due to the initial use of $. They speak of the same thing, but they don't _do_ the same thing.. For instance it is harder to batch-identify variables and its calls as one must then use an OR argument to find the calls and sets. That is kind of weak rationale on which to base a decision though imo. An editor will help, but a search for just "var" is bound to have false positives already, like font variant, any class or attr or url using "var" etc. > Also many users might be confused get() means to get some source like CLI get does. Surely we have url() for this but newcomers and people who don't know of CSS variables might think it is a new GET method which it isn't. Yes i mentioned that too... Something to consider, but maybe an ok trade off. > - Anselm Hannemann > @helloanselm
Received on Sunday, 14 April 2013 15:56:11 UTC