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

Re: [css-variables] Syntax of custom property declarations

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:02:25 +0800
Message-ID: <5199E6A1.4010907@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/20/2013 02:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:45 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 07:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> I'd be fine with switching over to that as soon as Syntax is approved
>>> for FPWD (hopefully at the f2f).
>>
>> I would prefer that Variables not depend on Syntax, as the latter is
>> quite unstable imho.
>
> Everything depends on Syntax.  It's a bedrock spec, as much if not
> more so than something like Values.
>
> And it can't be "quite unstable", because then it wouldn't be a good
> definition of the syntax, which is stable.  If it changes, it does so
> only in backwards-compatible ways.

It's unstable because you're still working on it and fixing all the
issues people are bringing up and checking it against CSS2.1. And
adding prose that's incompatible with CSS2.1/Selectors3 and getting
concerns from the WG about whether that's actually a good idea. No,
it is not a stable spec. It merely aspires to be a stable spec; it
is *not there yet* and I don't think it's a good idea for us to be
referencing it from Variables, which you intend to put in CR very
soon.

The stable definition of CSS syntax is in CSS2.1. It is not as
detailed and precise as your spec. But at least it is known to be
reasonably accurate and stable.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 09:02:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:30 UTC