W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2015

Re: [css-variables] -- considered harmful

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:31:42 +0000
Message-ID: <CANMdWTtsu91yoDjWhryJySndy17pmVdOC-JdGe+DywowSNXXFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:09 PM Daniel Glazman <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> On 02/11/2015 19:43, Chris Lilley wrote:
> > Hello Daniel,
> >
> > Monday, November 2, 2015, 6:57:44 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >> It's still time to offer better than what we have now.
> >> My 0.02€.
> >
> > Since (following the resolution at the f2f) today I am putting
> > together the transition request for this specification to advance to
> > CR, I have one simple question regarding this thread:
> >
> > If it is a formal objection, please respond to say so explicitly; if
> > not, please also respond to clarify that it should not be taken as
> > such. Thanks!
> >
> > Okay, now back to the technical discussions.
>
> I've asked chairs to add an agenda item about this and I can't really
> make an opinion before that chat happens. The live example shown in
> my original message opened my eyes, I regret it did not happen before
> TPAC.
>
> </Daniel>
>

Firefox has been shipping this syntax for more than one release now and
other browsers are very close to shipping it. I'd be reluctant to have
Chrome or Safari avoid matching Firefox or to force Firefox to change,
breaking any Firefox-only content that has been written in the meantime.

There's a certain cost to being the first mover on any new API. So forcing
Firefox to change isn't out of the question, but lets not break APIs that
are shipping in an existing browser unless the win is really large. In this
case, the improvement is subjective at best (i.e. not really large).
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2015 17:32:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:58 UTC