W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css-variables][naming] Renaming 'var'

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:25:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCqUvfxidaV0q0z_HY9tgHYv62MDVNt586LKRWKHdNAZg@mail.gmail.com>
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,

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

> 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.

Received on Sunday, 14 April 2013 17:26:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:28 UTC