In W3C CSS Working Group, there is a discussion[1] on providing
"longhand" (as opposed to "shorthand") for the "transform" property,
such as "transform-rotate" etc.. The use case is to shorten:
#demo {
transform: scale(2);
}
#demo.state-1 {
transform: scale(2) rotate(45deg);
}
#demo.state-2 {
transform: scale(2) rotate(90deg);
}
into
#demo {
transform: scale(2);
}
#demo.state-1 {
transform-rotate: 45deg;
}
#demo.state-2 {
transform-rotate: 90deg;
}
As there's technical problem for browser to support this, I am wondering
how SASS addresses a use csae like this (I myself is not familiar with
SASS). Would it be a good idea to have a new syntax (like the
"+transform" idea[2])? As some important features of SASS might become
CSS modules known as CSS Variables and CSS Mixin[3], I think it would be
nice to know what the SASS community thinks about this use case.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/thread#msg564
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0677
[3] http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4Av0
Cheers,
Kenny
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to haml@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to haml+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
