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

Re: [css-variables] Why so inefficient?

From: Praveen Puglia <praveenpuglia@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:29:21 +0530
Message-ID: <CANfatsonehu3-LWANsGqv8G4Og9f702gVD+Yuy+cHZLsqv8apg@mail.gmail.com>
To: darkdragon <darkdragon-001@web.de>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
>
> Further the choice for "--" which is the same for browser-specific
> properties like "--webkit-border-radius" etc. is also confusing.


I don't think vendor prefixes ever start with a double dash. They are
always in the form of *-[vendor]-property-name. *So no point of confusing
there.

I think the way of defining fallbacks in css is first putting the fallback
> and then providing an alternative if supported.


That's not always true. For example - *font-family*. It contains fallbacks
as a set of comma separated values. The problem with that would be to
modify width/height or any property to have the capability to accept
multiple values and understand what a fallback is. Which doesn't look like
a good solution.

In any of the cases, the properties now have to have this capability of
"try this...if failed, try that" instead of just overriding stuff. From
that perspective, it sounds safer to let the *var() *take care of
defaults/fallbacks instead of modifying existing properties?
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 16:00:11 UTC

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