SuzyUK - 8:41 pm on Oct 11, 2008 (gmt 0)

I don't think anyone including Bos is saying that they (constants) are not useful - he does after all recommend a right/wrong way to use them ;). and hopefully, we all know it can be done using your language of choice already. ..but as is often the case it's around the houses and to come back again.. when I posted this originally I had no opinion I hadn't even had time to read the essay, it was the simply the title that got me

The question I've been asking myself since - in between my rants/thought process - is what he's getting at when he says they are Harmful *IN* CSS - the fact that he is a little more forthright/condescending/ivory towerish about it make it hard to see past the overall tone of the essay to his point. However, we should give him leeway that yes he very likely isn't an 'everyday' CSS user, but he innately understands it, he was there at the start wasn't he? He doesn't have an ulterior motive, i.e. he's not, as far as I know, attached to any particular Browser or other software application.. thus making him able to see past the "everyday" (OT sidenote: I imagine if it were microsofts name at the top of this proposal the naysayer count would be larger, or at least merit a little thought ;))

I honestly think he's talking about CSS as a Language, i.e back to basics, what is the purpose of CSS kind of thing, and if I've interpreted that right - What would be *harmful* to CSS?

..adding in something that has nothing to do with its primary objective perhaps..

Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) is a simple mechanism for adding style (e.g. fonts, colors, spacing) to Web documents.

Source [w3.org]

or & thanks to this great discussion I think I'm beginning to see..

Constants in CSS would only work so-far. It is a very tiny, minor addition, whereas scripting is an enormous, huge box filled with endless possibilities.

My AHA! moment (Bert are you *that* Bert in disguise? :o), That is precisely the possible HARM, the wolf in sheep's clothing if you like; one "tiny" addition ushered in today under the heading of a something useful, but what next? I've already read some other discussions on the Glazman/Hyatt proposal [disruptive-innovations.com] and within one or two replies most were talking about how it could be extended,

If it were extended, where do you think the next step would take it.. "based on" type conditional variables? if/else variables?, that sounds pretty much like it's one step closer to programming/scripting capability to me. At the very least it's taking a "simple mechanism" and adding layer upon layer of something which is not necessary to its original function.

Not saying that this would necessarily happen but it could certainly open the doors to some of the other requests on the Web Designers wishlists.

Anyway, I took myself off back to re-read the essay again, because I felt I was going in circles and I do like a challenge to an opinion, and right there at the top of the essay when I re-read the introduction there it was, in plain speak - the point (for me anyway) in all it's simplicity.. my bold again!

There are certain kinds of extensions to CSS that people have regularly asked for over its (now 14 years) history but that nevertheless don't belong in CSS. They are extensions to bring CSS closer to a programming language (as opposed to extensions to support more of typography). They would at first sight be useful for advanced users, but in reality they are not, and are in fact harmful for the 'semantic Web,' i.e., for the idea that information should be re-usable. The proposed extensions include such things as conditional expressions (if-then-else), macros, expressions over properties, delegation (i.e., define an element's style by reference to another element), mark-up injection, mark-up transformation, and symbolic constants (a limited form of macros). This essay only deals with the last of these, constants, but the arguments apply in large part to the other proposed extensions as well.

great discussion btw.. I honestly did not really get why I was likely against it, the "harmful" bit, myself until after your last post Bert, (and don't worry no offence is being taken and hopefully you know that none is meant too!)

So it comes down to whether CSS should retain it's part in this "semantic" web thing or whether it move closer to a programming language, HTML have already been through this haven't they.. with calls for additions all over the place?

So I can now say that no longer am I "on the surface against" regarding this issue, it's not the actual constants themselves I'm averse to nor ever have been, I'm not scared of sorting out a stylesheet that has a little extra thinking involved in it - I'm sure I'll cope whichever way they're implemented.

I'm averse to CSS becoming a programming language, and not because I can't, trust me I can! but because I care about the semantic web and standards (and obviously CSS ;)), IMHO both HTML and CSS should remain simple, even basic, with ANY extension that is simply for the benefit of authors, as opposed to users, added via an external application/module