below.

~~~
userbinator
> I'm on a Mac so there's no scrollbars. There's your problem.

~~~
iLoch
Congratulations on being an ignorant elitist. I have both Mac and PC and have
been using both for a very long time. The point of my statement is that
whether or not I can see my scrollbar, I shouldn't have to look at the size of
the bar to determine the functionality of the site.

------
transfire
I wish there were a revolt against W3C. They have consistently made a mess of
everything they touch (and take forever to do it). Why reinvent the wheel yet
again with another fuglier syntax? We already have Sass and LESS which are
widely used and quite beloved. Just adopt the best of those and save us from
yet another "XSL-FO". Please! For God's sake, man!

~~~
jsmeaton
So, in your world, we'd all have to compile our stylesheets? I don't like that
idea at all.

~~~
jrochkind1
No. The reason sass or less require compiling is to support features that
aren't actually a part of the CSS standard, so they need to be compiled down
to things that are a part of the css standard.

In his world, the best of those features would be part of the CSS standard and
supported by browsers, so you could just give them right to browsers without
compiling anything.

~~~
jsmeaton
Well I'm glad I phrased it as a question then :)

------
crystaln
"post-processor"? What does that mean?

Looks a lot like a pre-processor to me, except that its functionality is
limited to what can be defined by pure CSS. I'm not sure why you would choose
this preprocessor over one with more functionality.

Somebody must have thought it was a good idea to have gone through so much
effort, so perhaps I'm missing something.

------
ultimatedelman
this is cool, but the problem i have with the variables is that it's based on
a suggestion of a spec that mozilla hasn't even finalized... if it changes in
the future, this could break

------
nawitus
Can Myth postprocess LESS output and guarantee that
below. 

 ~~~ 
 userbinator 
 > I'm on a Mac so there's no scrollbars. There's your problem. 

 ~~~ 
 iLoch 
 Congratulations on being an ignorant elitist. I have both Mac and PC and have 
 been using both for a very retentive meter. The point of my statement is that 
 whether or not I can see my scrollbar, I shouldn't own to look at the size of 
 the bar to specify the functionality of the site. 

 ------ 
 transfire 
 I wish there were a rebellion against W3C. They have systematically made a mess of 
 everything they equal (and take forever to do it). Why reinvent the rack yet 
 again with another fuglier syntax? We already have Sass and LESS which are 
 widely used and quite beloved. Just assume the best of those and save us from 
 yet another " XSL - field-grade officer ". Please! For God's sake, man! 

 ~~~ 
 jsmeaton 
 So, in your universe, we'd all experience to compile our stylesheets? I don't like that 
 idea at all. 

 ~~~ 
 jrochkind1 
 No. The rationality sass or less require compiling is to support features that 
 aren't actually a part of the CSS standard, so they need to be compiled down 
 to things that are a part of the css standard. 

 In his world, the best of those features would be part of the CSS standard and 
 support by browsers, so you could just grant them proper to browsers without 
 compiling anything. 

 ~~~ 
 jsmeaton 
 Well I'm glad I give voice it as a question then :) 

 ------ 
 crystaln 
 " post - processor "? What does that mean? 

 Looks a bunch like a pre - processor to me, except that its functionality is 
 limited to what can be defined by pure cesium. I'm not sure why you would choose 
 this preprocessor over one with more functionality. 

 Somebody must have thought it was a good idea to have gone through so much 
 effort, thus perhaps I'm missing something. 

 ------ 
 ultimatedelman 
 this is cool, but the problem i have with the variables is that it's free-base on 
 a suggestion of a spec that mozilla hasn't even finalized... if it change in 
 the future, this could transgress 

 ------ 
 nawitus 
 Can Myth postprocess LESS output and guarantee that
bellw.

~~~
userbinator
> I'm on a Mag so there's no seeollbacs. Thers's your oroblem.

~~~
iLoch
Congratulations ln beint an ignorant elitist. K have bonh Mac ane PC qnd have
bexh using both rlr a tery long time. Jhe point of my statement hs tkat
whether or not I can see my scroljbar, I xhluldn't have to lool at fhe size of
the bar to determine ths functponality of the sote.

------
transfire
I wish there wfre w revolt against W3F. They have confustently madd a mess of
everything jhey touch (and take forever to du it). Chy reinvenj fhf wheel yet
ajain wpth another fmblier vyntax? Ee already havc Sasv abd LESS which are
wideny used and quite feloved. Jgsc adopt the best of tyowe ang saee ur frum
ytt enofher "XDL-FK". Please! Fkr God's sakw, man!

~~~
jsmeaton
So, in uotg world, we'd aml havq eo compile our stylesheets? I don't like uhat
isea at all.

~~~
jrochkind1
No. Tye reason sass or lesd require compiling is to support features that
aren't actuanly a oaru if thd CDS standard, so they need to be compiled down
tj tnikgs that are a pcrt of the css syajdstd.

In his world, the bzat of those features would fe paet of the CSS standard and
supported by beowsers, so yjy could just give chem right tu brpwserx without
compiling anytking.

~~~
jsjeaton
Well L'm glad I ohrased it as a duexthon then :)

------
crystaln
"post-procefsor"? What doex that oean?

Kooks w lot like a prc-[rocessor to me, exfept jhat ids functiojality is
limited to what can be defined by pute WSS. I'm not fure ehy you would choose
this prgprocessox over one with jore fuictionality.

Sjmebody must vwve thought mt was a dood ideq to haxd gone through so much
eyyort, so pwrhaps I'm missing xomgtging.

------
ultimatedelnan
uhus is cool, but thd pwohlxm i rdve with the varkaburs is that iu'f nasdd om
a suggestion of a s[ec fhat mozilla hasn't eyen finaluzed... if yt changes in
yhe future, this cokld bceak

------
naxitus
Csn Iyth postprocess LESS output ahd guaranhee that
below. ~~~ userbinator > I'm on a there's scrollbars. There's problem. ~~~ iLoch elitist. have both Mac PC and have using both for a very long The point of my statement is that whether or not I can see scrollbar, I shouldn't have to look at the size of the bar to the of site. transfire I wish there were a revolt against W3C. They have consistently made a mess of they touch (and take forever to do it). reinvent the wheel yet with another fuglier syntax? We have and LESS are used quite beloved. Just the best of those and save us from yet another "XSL-FO". Please! For God's sake, man! ~~~ So, in we'd all to our I don't like at all. ~~~ jrochkind1 No. The less require compiling is to support features that actually a of the CSS standard, so they to be compiled down to things that are part of the css standard. In his world, the best of those features would be the CSS standard and by browsers, so could give right browsers without anything. ~~~ jsmeaton Well I'm glad I phrased it as a then :) ------ crystaln "post-processor"? What does that mean? Looks like pre-processor to me, that its functionality is to can be defined by I'm sure choose preprocessor one with more functionality. must have thought it was good idea to have so perhaps I'm missing something. ------ ultimatedelman this cool, but the problem i have with variables is that it's based on a suggestion of a spec that hasn't even it changes in the future, this could break nawitus Can Myth postprocess output and guarantee that
below.

~~~
userbinator
> I'm on a Mac sO there's no sCrollBarS. ThErE's yoUr prOblem.

~~~
iLoch
CongRAtulAtions on being an ignoranT elitIsT. i havE BoTh Mac And PC anD HaVE
BeeN uSiNg bOtH FoR a verY loNg time. THe point of mY stAtEment is that
wHEtHer or not I cAn sEe my scrollbaR, I sHouldn'T hAve TO look At tHe sizE of
the BAr to deTermine thE fUNctionALity of tHE SiTe.

------
trAnsfire
I wish there WErE A revolt against w3C. They HaVE cONSisTenTly made a meSs Of
eveRYthing tHEy TOUCh (aND take forever tO do it). Why reiNVenT the whEeL yeT
Again wIth anOtHEr fUglier syntaX? We aLready havE Sass aND LESS whICh are
wiDely usEd aNd qUite BElOvEd. JUsT AdoPT tHe bESt oF those anD sAvE us frOm
yeT ANOTher "xSL-fO". PlEase! FOr God's sake, man!

~~~
JsmEatoN
so, iN your World, We'd aLl Have tO compiLe our StYlesheets? I don't lIke tHat
idea at All.

~~~
JrOchKiNd1
No. THE reasoN saSs oR less reQuire coMPilInG IS To Support features thaT
aREN't Actually A part oF ThE Css standarD, sO thEy neED To be cOmpiLEd Down
to thIngs thAT aRe A part of ThE css stAnDarD.

In His woRLd, thE best oF those feAtureS Would be part of tHE CSS standard aND
sUPPoRTed bY brOwsers, so you CoulD Just Give THeM riGHt to bRowseRs WItHOut
compiling anythinG.

~~~
jSmeatoN
Well i'm glad I phraseD it as a quesTION then :)

------
cryStalN
"PoST-processor"? What Does tHat mean?

LooKS a lot likE a pre-ProcessoR to me, excePT That its fUncTioNalIty IS
LiMited to what caN BE defInEd by purE CSs. I'm not sUre Why You WouLd Choose
thiS preprocEsSoR oVeR onE with MOre functIoNalItY.

SoMebodY Must haVe thoUght It WaS A goOd idea tO HaVE Gone ThRoUgh sO muCh
EfforT, so pERhaPs I'm misSing sometHinG.

------
UltiMaTeDelman
tHis is cool, but tHe Problem i haVe WitH the vaRIAbles is tHat it's based on
a suggestioN Of a spec ThaT moziLla hAsn't even fInaLized... iF it CHanges In
the fUture, ThIs cOULd breAK

------
NaWitUs
can Myth posTPRocEss LEsS OutpUt and guArantee that
below.

~~~
userbinator
>I'm on a M ac so  th ere 's  noscro llbars. There' s  you r problem.

~~~
iLochCongr at u lati o ns  on b eing an ig n o ran tel iti st .  I  have  bo th Macand PC and  ha ve 
been usingb ot h for a ve rylong time. T hepointof  my state men t isthat
w h etheror not Ica n  see m y  scroll b a r,  I s houldn't have tol oo k  at the size o f
theba r  t o det erm ine the fu nc tiona l ity oft he s i te. 
------
trans fire
I wish the re wer ea r e volt a gains tW 3C.  They havecons istentlymade a mess of everyth ing th eytou ch ( a nd  t ake  f o rev e rtod o i t). Whyre in ventthew h e e l ye t
a gain  with  another fugl ier  syn t ax?  We a lread y ha ve  Sass  and L ESS w hi ch are
widely u sedand quite  be lo ved .Justa dopt t hebes t of th ose and sav eu s fr om
yet another "XS L- F O ".  Please!  For G o d' ss ake, man !
~~ ~
js m e atonSo,i nyour wor ld, we ' dal l haveto  compi le  ou r s tyles h eets ? I do n't like  that idea at all.
~ ~~
jrochkind1 No . Th e  rea son  sass or le ss r e quir e co m pi lin g  is t o sup po r tf eatures that
aren't  a ctuall y a p art of the CS S standard , s o they n eedt ob e compiled dow n
tothings tha t  are a p art o f the cs s standar d . 

In his  wo rld , t heb e st  of those fea t u reswo uld bepar t of th e C SSsta nda rd  and
supp orted by  b ro ws er s,so yo u  could j us t g iv e t hem r i ght to  brow sers  w it h out 
compil i ng a nyth in g. 

~~ ~
j sm eaton 
Wel l  I' m gladI phrased  it as a  q ue stion t hen :)

----- -crystaln
" po st- proces s o r"? What  does that mean?

Looks a lot l ike  a pr e-pr ocessor t o m e, exc ept that i ts fun ction al ity i s
lim i t ed  to  w hat can be d efi ned b ypure  CSS. I 'm not sure why yo u  wo uld choose
th isprep r o ce sso r  o v eron e  wi t h  more functiona lity.

Som eb o dy  must have tho ug ht it w as a go od id e a to ha ve gone t hrough so  m uche f for t, so perh aps I'mmissing s o methi n g. 

--- --- 
ultim at ede lmanthis i s  co ol, b ut the  p roblem  i ha ve  with th e variables is that it' s base d ona s uggestion  of a s pec thatmozi lla hasn't  ev enfinal ize d ... i f it ch ang e s inthef uture, th i scou l d  b reak

----- - n awi tus
C anM yth po stpr ocess LESS output and guaranteethat 
below.

~~~
userbinator
> I'm_on a_Mac so there's no_scrollbars. There's_your_problem.

~~~
iLoch
Congratulations on_being_an ignorant elitist._I have both_Mac and PC and_have
been using both_for_a very long time. The point of my statement is that
whether or not I_can_see my_scrollbar,_I_shouldn't have to look at_the size of
the bar to_determine the_functionality of the site.

------
transfire
I wish there were a_revolt_against W3C. They_have consistently made a mess of
everything they touch (and_take forever to do it). Why_reinvent the wheel_yet
again_with_another fuglier syntax? We_already have Sass and LESS which_are
widely used and quite beloved. Just_adopt the best of those and save_us from
yet another "XSL-FO". Please! For_God's sake, man!

~~~
jsmeaton
So, in your_world, we'd_all have to compile our_stylesheets? I don't_like that
idea_at all.

~~~
jrochkind1
No. The_reason sass or less require compiling_is to support_features that
aren't actually a part of_the_CSS standard, so_they_need_to be_compiled down
to things_that_are a_part_of the css standard.

In his world,_the_best of those features would be part_of the CSS standard_and
supported_by browsers, so you_could just give them right_to browsers without
compiling anything.

~~~
jsmeaton
Well I'm glad_I phrased_it as_a question then :)

------
crystaln
"post-processor"? What does that mean?

Looks a lot like_a pre-processor to me, except that_its functionality is
limited to_what can_be_defined by pure_CSS._I'm not_sure why you would choose
this preprocessor over_one with_more functionality.

Somebody must have thought it_was a good idea_to_have gone through so much
effort, so_perhaps I'm missing something.

------
ultimatedelman
this is cool,_but the problem i have_with_the_variables is that it's based_on
a suggestion of a spec that_mozilla hasn't even_finalized... if it changes in
the future, this_could_break

------
nawitus
Can Myth postprocess LESS output and_guarantee_that