- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 18:42:31 +0200
- To: "Mark Volkmann" <r.mark.volkmann@gmail.com>, "Chris Eppstein" <chris@eppsteins.net>
- Cc: "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>, "W3C WWW Style" <www-style@w3.org>
> I'm not familiar with what @ is being used for. > Why couldn't variables start with @? They are being used for at-rules, like @media, @page or @supports. The CSS WG doesn't want to overload the @ symbol with two things which are clearly unrelated. Also, there have been proposals where people wanted to embed @rules inside selector rules in the past, so we should leave that door open. > Why would it be difficult to implement this so > that --foo in a property value means get the > value of the foo property, making var(--foo) > unnecessary? This discussion already happened, in fact; please have a look for example at [1]. That being said, I agree with you and I think others do, too. There is (however) no major reason why we couldn't try to use "var" alone and then introduce a shorter syntax later on if it happens to be needed or heavily requested by users. You know, "var()" allows to do cool things like provide a default value, something you can't do with the keyword alone. (Well, I proposed to add an operator to "calc" to solve this but it didn't get much traction [2]). Best regards, François ________________________ [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0588.html [2] as in "calc(--col-span * --col-width || --col-width || 0px)" // this makes var(..., ...) unnecessary
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 16:42:40 UTC