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

> I think Tab’s argumentation to use underscores
> because customized media queries might or might
> not end up with underscored names is very weak.

Consider this another way: with "var-" we have no good opportunity to create 
an omnipresent concept of user-defined identifier in CSS because a lot of 
usages of those identifier will not be variables - something we didn't 
consider when [css-variables] started because custom properties was the only 
source of user-definenes envisaged at the time. With an underscore, we can: 
so why wouldn't we go in that direction?

> -var- was a compromise and I do believe we should
> not change this at this point but publish CR ASAP
> if not done yet.

As far as I know, to the notable exception of Tab, no one ever expressed 
positive agreement to -var- while other proposals did receive endorsments; 
so I wouldn't call this a compromise but rather a choice made at a time a 
choice had to be made. But now that the only person that ever defended this 
choice publicly backtracked, and made a (new) counter-proposal that received 
a surprisingly good welcome, I wouldn't mind revisiting this -- especially 
given Tab has the green light from the currently active implementor.

Almost all the other things that have been "taken out of the pandora box" in 
this thread are, I believe, things that will not happen in L1 anyway (but 
may be added to a future revision of the spec without breaking 
compatibility; think: not forcing use of "var(...)" by allowing just "..."; 
allow to reference the specified value of any property and not just custom 
ones; ...)). This thread of course had mentions to them, because it's 
important to make a choice that leaves as many doors as possible open; that 
absolutely doesn't mean those things will be included in L1 (they will not) 
nor does it garantee they will ever enter in any working draft; it just 
means that some people wanted them to be considered in the choice. I think 
it's a sane approach towards making a good choice. 

Received on Saturday, 15 March 2014 17:24:03 UTC