Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I'm puzzled as to why Custom CSS properties, why not? would have been closed.

It does not seem to me like an open-ended question. It is a quite specific question about whether a certain feature (custom cascaded variables) is available in CSS or not, and (implicitly) if not, what workarounds might be available. Custom cascaded variables are actually a highly useful concept to the extent that an active working group is defining them as we speak (see

Unfortunately it is true that the OP did express his question poorly, with some elements making it seem like a bit of a rant. But that shouldn't change the fact that it's a useful question with potentially useful answers.

Disclaimer: I'm the one that provided the answer to this question involving "borrowing" an existing CSS property for your own purposes.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by CRABOLO, Martijn Pieters, Doorknob, Aziz Shaikh, gnat Jan 22 '15 at 13:47

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – CRABOLO, Martijn Pieters, Doorknob, Aziz Shaikh, gnat
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

up vote 3 down vote accepted

It is a quite specific question about whether a certain feature (custom cascaded variables) is available in CSS or not, and (implicitly) if not, what workarounds might be available.

From what I'm reading, it only asks why it doesn't exist. I don't see any mention of "does it exist?" or "what alternatives are there?" in the body of that question. Even if that were true, it would still be not constructive.

The problem with this question is a user can literally say anything and technically be correct. The question is "why?" which is all speculation. People can speculate about whatever they want. The voting process then becomes a case of agreement and disagreement, since technically there is no "correct" answer, just answers which make more sense, or have more research under them, or are the most creative of the bunch. The question is a list at its base.

If and when the actual feature becomes available, a better question would be asking how to use them, providing a specific example of how they expect them to be used.

share|improve this answer

I should have known this would come up on meta :)

Like animuson said, this question is pretty speculative. It talks about a hypothetical feature of CSS that in reality doesn't exist, and asks, quite simply, "why not" (and repeats that a couple of times). That isn't very specific at all. It also throws around several programming terms that don't really make sense in its context (AOP? CSS isn't even a programming language).

For the record, I upvoted your answer as well. It's a clever hack. But you're not exactly answering the question either... the OP never asked for a solution; he only asked for speculative reasoning for the nonexistence of a hypothetical feature. That in itself is not suited to our definition of Q&A.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .