W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2014

[css-variables] Author comments reported by Daniel (was: Agenda conf call 07-may-2014)

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 12:44:30 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB130-DS1559181CD5CC79D7853512A54E0@phx.gbl>
To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: "CSS WG" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Daniel,

> Before our call later today, I would like to forward here verbatim
> comments from css authors I recently met and had a long chat with:
> 2. (unrelated to the agenda item above) the -- prefix for Custom
>   Properties is ugly and unreadable, also prone to errors. (and
>    I will not tell you their precise words here, ahem...)

This is interesting. Could you clarify what the author meant? I've two 
questions here: what is considered ugly, and why? Are there "logical" (too 
much to type, ...) or "cognitive" (we taught us not to use that, this 
reminded me <x> but wasn't similar, ...) reasons behind this, or is that 
merely an opinion?

I agree that "width: calc(var(--grid-col-span, 1) * var(--grid-col-size, 
0px))" has too much non-meaningful tokens (and could be thought as 
inelegant) and always claimed we should allow "width: --grid-col-size" and 
"width: calc((--grid-col-span||1) * (--grid-col-size||0px))" in future 
revisions of the spec, but I don't think "--custom-property: value" is ugly 
by any mean. Double-dash never was my preference but this is a very good 
compromise, I think. Changing that would require valid arguments and not 
mere opinions, I guess.

> I tend to agree with both opinions.

Is that a change from your initial position [0] which was that "--" looked 
ok? What made you change your mind, if you can coin that?

Best regards,


[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0351.html 
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 10:44:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:42 UTC