12 ms·
Looks like another round of W3C bike-shedding an existing easy-to-use and well-understood community standard until it's godawful to work with and half as useful
by richthegeek 4y ago
Looks like another round of W3C bike-shedding an existing easy-to-use and well-understood community standard until it's godawful to work with and half as useful.
Gotta love standards bodies!
- mrcartmeneses 4y ago
- madeofpalk 4y agoThis is just css. No one's going to die.
- blowski 4y agoNo, these are the kind of people who are deliberating on the best syntax to support millions of projects using CSS for the next 30 years. They have to factor in backwards compatibility, extensibility, performance, security, accessibility, responsiveness, and lots of other NFRs. Once it’s out there, it has to be supported for a long time. It’s worth deliberating to get right. Nobody will die because they took their time.
- Aeolun 4y agoKinda? People have been working with their preferred syntax for oh, the last 10 years or so? It’s scss. No point in making a poll with an answer that’s already decided.
- blowski 4y agoThey mention in the post this has issues because browsers don’t have a build step in the same way Sass has. What’s your solution for that?
- JoBrad 4y agoSupport look ahead to some limit, then fail that css resource, with an error message that is more verbose in the dev console.
- FractalHQ 4y agoI like this idea. Could even bake a warning into VSCode.
- blowski 4y agoSounds like a good idea. Are you able to suggest it to them?
- jakelazaroff 4y agoOne of the goals for the web in general is to not impose the burden for that kind of strictness onto users. It's why we reversed course away from XHTML, which would refuse to render a page if the markup was incorrect. Put another way: inconveniencing developers is preferable to inconveniencing users.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoscss avoids a lot of problems because it's a preprocessor