CSS3

Comments

• 01.
  

  Peter Gasston says:Comment » July 5th, 2006 at 7:59 pm

  
  

  Very interesting. If I could request one feature in CSS(4?), it would be equivalencies; that is, for example:

  .first { min-height: 100px; }
  .second { height: (.first); }

  or:

  .first { width: 100px; }
  .second { width: (100% – .first); }

• 02.
  

  Emil Stenström says:Comment » July 5th, 2006 at 8:26 pm

  
  

  I did an interview with him long before those slashdot copycats came and took the idea :)

  @Peter Gasston: references like that was considered for CSS but didn’t make it through. The idea is to keep CSS as simple as possible. Adding variables would add an extra abstraction layer to the language something that would make it harder to learn. In my opinion we should keep the CSS syntax simple and concentrate on features instead.

  Thanks for a good blog, found it some days ago.

• 03.
  

  Joost de Valk says:Comment » July 25th, 2006 at 8:08 am

  
  

  I agree Emil, variables in CSS would not be wise. We don’t have them in HTML do we? :) I use PHP or other languages to generate CSS most of the time, that gives me the advantages of having variables :)

• 04.
  

  Per says:Comment » February 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

  
  

  Variables or not. One thing I would like to see is to combine %-size with fixed sizes like this:

  .head {height:100px;}
  .content { height: (100% – 200px); }
  .foot {height:100px;}

  Or maybe like this to avoid math expressions:
  .head {height:100px;}
  .content { height: 100%; height-change:-100px;}
  .foot {height:100px;}

  Today its not possible to make a liquid design with a fixed-height header, a liquid-height content and a fixed height footer.