Re: [css-variables] Another use case for "cascade"

As an author, to me this feels more like a hack than a solution.
Using !important is considered bad practice where I am living anyway. 

Ron van den Boogaard

On 17 apr. 2014, at 17:57, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> EDIT: forgot to add "!important" to the generic declaration to make it happen before all the other rules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just figured out I would have liked to have “cascade” today in the following
> case:
> 
>   button {
>       background: #aaa;
>       color: black;
>   }
> 
>   button:hover {
>       background: orange;
>       color: white;
>   }
> 
>   <!-- this button won't become orange on hover :( -->
>   <button style="background: red; color: white;">...</button><!-- or
> #button_id { ... } -->
> 
> vs
> 
> 
>   :hover {
>       background: var(--hover-background, cascade) !important;
>       color: var(--hover-color, cascade) !important;
>   }
> 
>   button {
>       background: #aaa;
>       --hover-background: orange;
>       color: black;
>       --hover-color: white;
>   }
> 
>   <!-- it will work :-) -->
>   <button style="background: red; color: white;">...</button><!-- or
> #button_id { ... } -->
> 
> That's it, this is just for the record and possible later references --
> except if you have comments of course!
> François
> 
> ______________________
> PS: Yes, I know, I can maybe use "button:hover" and accept only
> "--hover-background" for buttons, for which I know what the fallback should
> be, but that's maybe not the most elegant option, or is it? What if I don't
> want to change the background if no hover-background was specified?
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 16:12:33 UTC