- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:45:05 +0100
- To: "Marat Tanalin" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
> Using custom properties for polyfilling (while, of course,
> better than _nothing_) forces web developer to _duplicate_
> value in both standard property _and_ a custom one. Such
> duplication is totally not the same as "just _adding_ a small
> prefix to property name" as Tab likes to incorrectly advertise.
This is not entirely accurate.
* {
turbo-boost: var(fc_turbo_boost);
-ms-trubo-boost: var(fc_trubo_boost);
-moz-trubo-boost: var(fc_trubo_boost);
-webkit-trubo-boost: var(fc_trubo_boost);
fc_turbo_boost: var(invalid); /* or inherit if the property is
supposed to inherit */
}
/* now we can use fc_turbo_boost anywhere else in our stylesheet */
> Using `var()` for accessing something that is not a variable
> looks confusing and therefore undesirable. Something like
> `prop()` would probably be more appropriate and intuitive.
> (And `prop()` should work for any property -- not just
> custom ones. ;-)
This a different debate; one I put a lot of conviction into, but a different
issue anyway. As I discovered, it's really hard to make good arguments stand
out in a Custom Properties discussion because so many things get discussed
at once. Let's stay focused on Tab's proposal for now, and *if* we resolve
towards changing the declaration syntax, *then* we'll see if there's a need
and volounty to reopen the usage syntax. Let's work on one thing at a time
;-)
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 21:45:31 UTC