- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:25:25 -0700
- To: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
- Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:43 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. 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. What, like a regex? To avoid false positives you want enough specialization that you have to do basically the same thing with var, too. That is, a good way to identify var/var usage is /(\Wvar-[\w-]) | (\Wvar\()/. With get/set, it's just /(\Wset-[\w-]) | (\Wget\()/. (In other words, identical except for the term in the middle of each clause. > 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. I am quite certain this will confuse basically no one. ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 14 April 2013 17:26:12 UTC