Will I be able to reference non custom properties with var()? var(background-color) Cause this would be amazing and more consistent. On Apr 3, 2014 12:55 PM, "Ron van den Boogaard" <ron@ronvdb.com> wrote: > As an author I'd rather have the prefix than the nesting. > One missed curly bracket might break part of the css. > Whereas a prefix keeps it much more recognizable and maintainable. > Ron van den Boogaard > > Ronald > > P Before printing, think about the environment > > On 3 apr. 2014, at 21:23, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: > > > 03.04.2014, 20:33, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>: > >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mark Volkmann < > r.mark.volkmann@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not familiar with what @ is being used for. Why couldn't > variables start > >>> with @? > >> > >> @ is for at-rules. CSS Syntax already allows at-rules inside of style > >> rules (none are defined yet, but it's available when we extend into > >> that realm, which we will definitely do) > > > > If at-rules are allowed inside of style rules, then it's maybe time to > reconsider defining variables (custom props now) via a nested at-rule: > > > > .example { > > @var { > > foo: #fff; > > bar: #000; > > } > > > > background: var(foo); > > color: var(bar); > > } > > > > So any prefix like `--` is unneeded at all while variables are clearly > separated from regular properties. > > > > As a nice side effect, global (root-level) variables could be defined > without need to nest them in redundant style rule with `:root` selector. > > > > > > >Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 20:43:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:39 UTC