Re: [css-variables] ...let's change the syntax

On 13.03.2014, at 18:12, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> 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.
> 
> We'd have to use it for the other custom things, too (which is totally
> possible).

Removing the var- prefix is a great idea, since custom properties get confused with SASS/LESS variables. I'd even go as far as renaming var() to prop().

Rule allowing "_" anywhere in the name seems like a better solution than the "--" prefix, since it allows shorter names and encourages namespacing: "prefix_" is IMHO much more tolerable than "--prefix-", and avoids being confusingly similar to vendors' "-prefix-".


I wonder whether custom properties looking almost like 1st-class properties will encourage authors to use them beyond CSS var() and polyfills, and instead invent their own JS-based layout engines, e.g.

.gallery {
    masonry_display: jagged_grid;
}

I'm not sure whether that's awesome or terrible :)

-- 
regards, Kornel