- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:06:50 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Chris Eppstein" <chris@eppsteins.net>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
> >>> An issue we're bumping into in the sass community now is namespace > >>> collisions from 3rd-party libraries. It would be nice if CSS could > >>> avoid our > >>> mistake by forcing a namespace for custom properties. > >> > >> That's why I'd prefer "underscore anywhere in the name" over "leading > >> underscore" - you can put the namespace before the underscore, leading > >> to a nice visual separation. > > > > Since we have -[vendor]- for custom vendor things, we could just > > reserve -- > > for 'no vendor, just custom'... At least it's explainable/consistent. > > It has a nice ring to it, but I don't think it's substantially better > than _. I can go either way. In the light of the first paragraph of this mail, I think we should probably prefer "an underscore anywhere (except in the first position?)" because it forces to use a custom prefix, and escape any IE6-era issue altogether. Two dashes as a prefix is hyper rational in a certain context but is more contraining and already provides a "prefix" built-in; this is no worse than "var-" but given Chris' experience in the domain, I would lean towards a solution that mitigates the issue he outlines, if possible. In addition, we tell people to avoid vendor prefixes; if we tell them "--angular-xyz" is good but "-webkit-transition" is bad, we are starting to send mixed messages, right? Thoughts?
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 21:07:18 UTC