5 ms·

W3C strikes again. They are uniquely gifted at creating ungainly and ugly standards even in the face of widespread industry practices are already commonly used

W3C strikes again. They are uniquely gifted at creating ungainly and ugly standards even in the face of widespread industry practices are already commonly used (less, sass). I really want to know who thought `var-` prefix was a banging idea.

4thjuly 13y ago
I wasn't involved so don't know first hand but suspect the gory details were discussed by everyone in the working group. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/. Or were you being sarcastic? ;)
city41 13y ago
I suspect backwards compatibility has something to do with it. Old browsers probably ignore var- attributes. But something like @var quite possible makes IE5 or something throw fits.
- Recoil42 13y ago
  Great, so in order to cater to the 1% of the population still using an archaic non-standard browser, we screw over the spec for the rest of time. Sound logic, isn't it?
  - simonw 13y ago
    Yes. If the syntax breaks older browsers, many developers will avoid using the feature entirely.
    - arcatek 13y ago
      Many, but maybe (probably) not most.
      - airtonix 13y ago
        And any that do avoid using it now are always mostly lagards anyway.
ris 13y ago
Please realize that this proposal does much more than less/sass variables before you pooh-pooh it. e.g. it has to potential to work dynamically.
- jonathanhefner 13y ago
  Which makes it more difficult (impossible?) to polyfill. For the time being, I see that as an anti-feature.
qznc 13y ago
As far as I know, no major browser even tries to support text/sass or text/sass for stylesheets.