- From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:10:15 +0300
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
10.03.2016, 00:25, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>: > On 03/08/2016 03:27 PM, Marat Tanalin wrote: >> 24.02.2016, 00:46, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>: >>> the allowed name syntax for @counter-style rules was a mistake - >> >> As for @counter-style in particular, it's better late than never. >> Given that there is just one implementation, just add the prefix. > > CSS consistently uses undifferentiated identifiers for such things. The fact that there were mistakes (regardless of their number) in the past (that we cannot change) is alone probably not a reason to make similar mistakes over and over again in the future (that we can control). By the way, I'm not sure that a prefix is the best option to avoid name collisions in such cases. I would probably prefer a dedicated function like `counter-style()` on use while keeping the definition syntax as is: @counter-style foobar { /* ... */ } .example { list-style: counter-style(foobar); } This way, we would consistently have the same prefix-free identifier on both definition and use. Possible confusion with CSS variables in terms of syntax would be avoided as well (in general, it's probably not a great idea at all to use the CSS-variables' prefix for something not related to CSS variables).
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 02:10:47 UTC