- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:59:20 +1100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, darkdragon <darkdragon-001@web.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai: > I'm not convinced restriction is worth the cost. Imho a bare --foo > should be valid as a variable use. If fallbacks are needed, then they > can be provided with functional notation. > > If I was designing from scratch, we could have > width: --foo; > width: fallback(--foo, 20px); > but failing that I guess > width: --foo; > width: var(--foo, 20px); > is fine. Yes, that is also what I’d do if designing from scratch. :-) https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Nov/0039.html But as I mention at the bottom of that mail, you would need a way to mention custom properties without them expanding, for transition-property. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 05:00:03 UTC