- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:37:37 +0000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 14/03/2014 01:30, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote: >>>>> Is my suggestion of >>>>> "--" everywhere for custom as opposed to "_" just as doable? >>>> >>>> Yes, this is just another syntax possibility for custom property >>>> names, which is exactly what I'm asking about. Totally possible. >>> >>> Unfortunately, "--" would require a change to Syntax. IDENT isn't allowed to >>> start with two dashes in a row. >> >> Whoops, you're right. Forgot about that detail. Well, -- is ruled out then. > > That seems an odd position considering how often the Working Group has > changed details of the core syntax over the years. Unless I am missing > something, either way the declaration and only the declaration would be > dropped, so there is no backwards-compatibility concern. And using the > "--" as infix only would seem preferable over using it as prefix any- > way. I do not think "--" is much better than the underscore, but I do > think the question above deserves a better answer than simply pointing > to the Syntax specification without elaboration. Fair enough. We can change Syntax, and have in the past. In this case however, we’re pretty late in the development of css-variables. At least one browser is ready to ship it Very Soon. Changing the definition of <ident-token> is significantly more disruptive than Tab’s original proposal in this thread. Is "--" really worth this? -- Simon Sapin
Received on Friday, 14 March 2014 11:38:05 UTC