- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:34:07 -0700
- To: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: > Sure. It's just a matter of what we want more: a limited feature with some possible inconsistency in edge cases, or no feature at all. This isn't edge-cases. There are a *lot* of implicit dependencies between properties, and people *will* hit them. We do add new dependencies regularly, and this *will* affect pages that were fine previously. We're not allowed to be inconsistent, and we're *especially* not going to produce a feature that is guaranteed to break pages as we extend the language in unrelated ways. You can't refer to the values of other properties. Full stop. It won't happen. Every possible strategy involves breaking pages as we extend the language. If you want property A to have the same value as property B, set up a custom property and use it in both of them. > By the way, we already have multiple inconsistencies in CSS, e.g.: > > * `@import` working only if used before any other rules; > * `currentColor` using camelCase instead of hyphen-separated notation; > * `:has()` available in the "Complete" profile, but not in the "Fast" one. All of these examples are completely irrelevant to the "inconsistency" in question. We're talking about behavior differing between browsers, between browser versions, or between pages in the same browser version. It might be inconsistent within a single page across reloads, depending on implementation strategy. This is not something we will allow, ever. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 20:34:56 UTC