- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:42:50 -0800
- 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