Indeed! That's why I wrote the article :)

Debating the syntax is not the same as resisting the feature.

I don't see a lot of "debating" going on. If you want to point me to some constructive debates, that would be nice.

I guess that depends on how you define debate. I'm referring to that the proposal is made and some people show their distaste for part of what is proposed. Those that made the proposal, or support it, respond. This is shown in the article. I see no resistance to the feature being introduced in that, just disagreement on a part of the proposal.

> I guess that depends on how you define debate. I'm referring to that the proposal is made and some people show their distaste for part of what is proposed. Those that made the proposal respond. I see no resistance to the feature being introduced in that, just disagreement on a part of the proposal.

Just to be clear, neither I nor Addy Osmani proposed CSS Custom Properties. We're just excited about the feature and sharing it with others. So when people respond negatively to us, it doesn't feel like debating.

The time for debating was when it was being discussed in the working group; before it was implemented in three different browsers.

I realized the difference, which is why I edited and added in those that support the proposal. Weird that your response is listed underneath the post you are quoting.

So, you should be immune to a negative response when you publicly state your support for a feature? People don't like how the feature is implemented and say as much. Like I said, it depends on how you define debate and I guess it doesn't match your definition. That's fine with me. But that doesn't mean I don't get to refer to it as a debate. I see it as a debate and if you disagree, that's fine with me as well.

People did debate during the proposal and as such things usually go, people will continue to do so. People had similar issues with flex and gradients. Note that the syntax for those were altered after they were implemented into browsers.