- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:25:31 -0600
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Hr Gwea <hrg.wea@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFDDJ7zMtwsf7OPbcQU63kPHc6fP8J_e+YY+osdR24LeuN1AdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Tab: When essentially the same feature request came up in March ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0211.html), you agreed to note it as an outstanding issue for now. The issue is in the Editor's Draft here: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-lists-3/#counter-functions Has there been specific feedback from other implementers since then? I'm certainly one person who'd love to see this as a language feature. When discussing performance impacts, remember that the alternative (widely used in decorative layouts on CodePen; I don't know how widely used in "the wild") is to use a CSS pre-processor to generate a series of nth-of-type selectors, which bloat style sheets and have their own performance concerns. ~ABR On 30 August 2016 at 15:55, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Hr Gwea <hrg.wea@gmail.com> wrote: > > Have you, guys, thought of the possibility of using CSS counters inside > the > > CALC function? > > That would be super useful for so many cases. > > The current counter() function outputs a <string>, so it can't be used > directly in calc(). We could possibly define a counter-value() > function that gave an integer, of course. > > However, all of the uses I've ever seen for this have been pretty > trivial "toy" cases. The closest thing to reasonable I've ever seen > has been clock use-cases, like your example seems to be, and those are > rare enough that they're not very strong justification for this > feature. Counters are surprisingly expensive in browsers, and so > they're loathe to add new features that would promote heavier usage of > them without strong justification. > > ~TJ > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 22:26:01 UTC