- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:38:48 -0700
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk
<news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's literally the exact opposite of the intention that led me to
>> start this thread. I'm trying to make custom properties and variables
>> *less* connected, not more.
>>
>
> If they are not variables the let's use const() then
>
> p {
> const(company-color-1): green;
> background-color: const(company-color-1);
> }
>
> Or some as such.
You don't seem to understand what I meant when I said that's the exact
opposite of why I started the thread, because this suggestion is
*still* the exact opposite.
> The main goal as far as I understand is to separate standard
> properties namespace from
> custom ones. The only strict way of doing this in existing CSS syntax
> constructs is
> function notation. All these '-' and '_' tricks are really palliatives.
Separating the namespace out is already done - the current spec's use
of a "var-" prefix accomplishes that. This thread is meant to explore
alternatives that would mesh better with the *other* author-custom
things getting added, which don't have any connection to var().
~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 18:39:39 UTC