W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2014

Re: [css-variables] a more "Classical" approach

From: Rafał Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:15:05 +0200
Message-ID: <538F29E9.1090607@ztk-rp.eu>
To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, www-style@w3.org
Hi François,

thenx for clearification.

I do, however keep my reservations.

W dniu 04.06.2014 15:27, François REMY pisze:
> There is a slight misunderstanding here. The [css-variables] specs 
> defines "Custom Properties". What you propose is a Macro system 
> similar to what you can have in C/C++. Those are two different things 
> which aim at solving different use cases (though some use cases can be 
> solved by both approaches, this isn't a requirement per se).

I don't really thing so.

macros, one may say, are "text subtitution".

what I'm trying to propose is something like "temporary style storage", 
which when used, is to be "joined" with "current main css", much like 
tables are joined in RDBMS.

> FWIW, the “$” char has been used for Custom Properties in the past but 
> is now reserved for a Macro system like the one you propose; it will 
> be introduced in the coming years once Custom Properties will have 
> more implementations.


1. are there any public documents regarding those Macros?

2. as far as I can tell, having "those Macros" (or the "macros I 
propose"), would provide a better way to keep "common css features" in 
one place, then the "--*" / "var()" extention. And additionally, it 
doesn't give a way to "procedural CSS", which is a "good thing". So if 
there is any other document containig reasoning in favour of 
"--*'/"var()", I'd apreciate a pointer so I can read it and see the big 
picture I'm currently missing. With only the reasoning found in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/css-variables-1/, I'd say, that having it 
standarised before Macros looks a bit like a waste of time.

> _____________________
>> The original proposal does allow for "if (x > 5) this.width = 10", 
>> which I think is simply wrong.
> This isn't quite true. The idea is that you can write almost anything 
> in a custom property, including things that does not mean anything in 
> CSS, like in this case; if you try to use it anywhere, it still isn't 
> valid CSS. Maybe this confusing example should be removed.

No. I don't thing it does confuse me. I think the example is very 
valuable as eyes openner.

I've just googled for "css custom properties", and the document we 
currently discuss (http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-variables/) is the only 
relevant hit returned.

So, If by "custom properties" (CP) as per this document, you try to 
introduce "alternative javascript", so that a web-author can "do 
anything with CSS", when the actual problem at hand is noticable 
excesive redundancy of CSS files as per current standard; then I do 
think that the proposal  is just plain wrong. sory. I do however would 
appreciate pointers to reasoning in favour  of CP, if there are any 
other. May be I'm wrong instead.

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 14:15:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:43 UTC