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

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

From: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:48:06 +0200
Message-Id: <D2384E5C-6554-480C-AC05-46ABDCED349B@anselm-hannemann.com>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "sylvain.galineau@gmail.com" <sylvain.galineau@gmail.com>, "fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
On 14.04.2013, at 19:29, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

>> From: daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com
>> I think you'll have pro and con answers that will lead to
>> the following results:
>> - some love it
>> - some hate it
>> - some have no strong opinion
>> In other terms, non-conclusive :-)
> On a more general note, I find this kind of reasoning slightly dishonest because it's based on tautologies. You can draw the exact same conclusions every time anybody makes a counter-proposal to anything [to the condition the author of the initial proposal chooses not to rally the new proposal]. This reasoning is a statu-quo logic that best serves the editor's interests, not really the community feedback. What matters is the amount of people liking a proposal over the amount of people disliking it.
> That being said, I've to agree I'm not particularly thrilled by this proposal, for one reason: if Custom Properties are properties like any other [something that seems to have been accepted by almost everybody by now] then there's no reason to use 'set' to specify an assignment of a value to custom property because the ':' already indicates that for every property; there's nothing special to custom properties that require additional semantic.
> My point of view on the getter syntax [ie: get() vs var()] is already nicely stated in the latest thread I opened about CSS Custom Properties, I don't think there's any valid reason to restate it here. To summarize, I'm still thinking we should go for "background-image: get(var-foo || none, url('bg_top.png'), url('bg_bottom.png'))" instead of "background-image: var(foo, none, url('bg_top.png'), url('bg_bottom.png'))".

With this example it starts to make sense for me.

> However, I've some more thoughts on Custom Properties that I would like to share, but I'm going to do this in a separate thread & at a later time.
> To be honest, the biggest advantage of the current var() syntax is that it's largely feature incomplete and not extension-friendly, which means we have still the opportunity in the future to propose a new syntax for the kinds of usage I think will make CSS Custom Properties really useful to developers and designers, and not just limit them to be the preprocessor-of-the-poor & the CSS polyfill's facility usages I think this v1 draft is aimed at. 
> According to me, CSS Custom Properties are still far from usefulness for CSS developers; but we will eventually get there.
> Hoping all the people living in western europe like did make good use of this hot&sunny day ;-)
> François                         
Received on Sunday, 14 April 2013 17:48:49 UTC

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