W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [css-variables] Why so inefficient?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:42:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC+FqPOijwyph5EOdxiPa8VVX6T7HSeMvKCRh075Fqs3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, darkdragon <darkdragon-001@web.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> 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.

In other words, what I originally said - we already have several
places where you can provide custom idents, which would be
grammatically ambiguous with a variable reference. ^_^

The "provide One Way To Do It, unless there's a good reason"
philosophy is worthwhile for many reasons.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 06:43:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC