CSS Mixins & Functions Explainer

Table of Contents

Author

Miriam Suzanne

(Based heavily on a custom-function proposal by Tab Atkins)

Intro

Over the years, many features from Sass and other CSS pre-processors (Less, Stylus, PostCSS, etc) have made their way into browsers as part of CSS itself. Along the way, those features generally change – taking on different affordances and constraints appropriate for a declarative client-side language.

However, there are several popular features that have not yet made the transition. This document explores the possibility of bringing custom (author-defined) mixins and functions into the CSS language:

Discussion

Summary & Goals

From a language/implementation perspective mixins and functions are distinct features – they live at different levels of the syntax, and come with different complications.

If we do pursue both features, we should likely break them into different levels of a specification, or even different specifications.

However, from the author perspective the features have a lot in common. Both provide a way to capture and reuse some amount of CSS logic. That can help improve maintainability by:

Removing the reliance on pre-processors would further simplify maintenance for CSS authors – while providing new client-side functionality:

My goal here is to explore what would be possible with each feature, where we could re-use syntax between them, and how we might move forward with implementing them.

Prior art

These aren’t new ideas. At one point, there was a plan for custom properties to act as a form of mixin. That @apply proposal was abandoned as the wrong approach for several reasons:

But there are other possible solutions, and several open discussions in the CSS Working Group:

(If there are more I haven’t found, please let me know.)

The style() feature of @container can sometimes be used to approximate ‘mixin’ behavior. There are several recent posts and articles written about that approach. However, style queries share the limitation of other container queries – we can’t style the container being queried.

I have also written in depth about how we can use custom properties to create pseudo-mixins/functions. While those custom property tricks can be useful, they also come with significant complexity, caveats, and limitations:

Mixins and functions in pre-processors

There is some (incomplete) data from the HTTP Archive project that can help us understand how authors are using Sass currently:

Sass provides some built-in core functions, but (so far) does not provide core mixins. Likely for that reason, the HTTP Archive report lists several commonly-used built-in functions (if(), and darken()), but only the most commonly used custom mixin name (clearfix).

I also asked on Mastodon: “What are the most common custom functions or mixins that you define/use in a css pre-processor?” The answers included:

While several of those use-cases (like color-contrast) should become core CSS features – others are best left to user-land solutions. Even with color-contrast it is very difficult for the CSSWG to settle on a long-term solution for the entire platform, while an individual team would be much more able to change their approach over time. By capturing that logic in a single place (like a custom function), many changes could be made without any invasive re-write of the code base.

Simple shorthands avoid repetition

The popular Sass functions and mixins also demonstrate a range of different input needs. A clearfix mixin often has no exposed ‘parameters’, and no internal logic. When the mixin is invoked, it will output the same code every time. This is useful for maintaining DRY code (Don’t Repeat Yourself), but ends up very similar to using a ‘utility class’ such as .clearfix.

When no parameters are exposed, the main difference between a class and a mixin comes from how the repeated code is applied – through HTML attributes (for the class), or directly in CSS to other selectors (for mixins). The need for CSS control comes into focus when combined with @media/@container and other conditional logic. There is currently no way in CSS to write this code without defining all the custom properties twice:

.dark-mode {
  --background: black;
  --text: white;
  /* more custom props as needed… */
}

@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
  html:not(.light-mode) {
    --background: black;
    --text: white;
    /* more custom props as needed… */
  }
}

Most of the currently proposed solutions to that problem combine conditional logic with selector logic, so that both can be defined at once. In Sass, we would fix this instead by providing a dark-mode mixin that can be used multiple times to output the same declarations with only minimal repetition:

@mixin dark-mode {
  --background: black;
  --text: white;
  /* more custom props as needed… */
}

.dark-mode {
  @include dark-mode;
}

@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
  html:not(.light-mode) {
    @include dark-mode;
  }
}

The repetition can be dramatically reduced by defining the output of the mixin in a single place.

Using @container style() might also be an option here. Container style queries are often referred to as mixin-like, but they come with all the limitations of container queries. If we set a custom property --mode on the root html element, we have to assign properties on a different element than we query:

.dark-mode {
  --mode: dark;
}

@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
  html:not(.light-mode) {
    --mode: dark;
  }
}

@container style(--mode: dark) {
  /* The html element cannot query itself */
  body {
    --background: black;
    --text: white;
    /* more custom props as needed… */
  }
}

That can cause several problems:

It can also be useful to provide mixins that have no author-facing parameters, but still contain internal logic and conditional statements – using @supports, @media, or @container:

@mixin gradient-text {
  color: teal;

  @supports (background-clip: text) or (-webkit-background-clip: text;) {
    background: linear-gradient(to bottom right, teal, mediumvioletred);
    -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;
    -webkit-background-clip: text;
    background-clip: text;
  }
}

A mixin like this might even reference external values by relying on custom properties without accepting explicit override parameters:

@mixin gradient-text {
  --gradient-text-start: var(--color-primary, teal);
  --gradient-text-end: var(--color-complement, mediumvioletred);
  color: var(--gradient-text-start);

  @supports (background-clip: text) or (-webkit-background-clip: text;) {
    background: linear-gradient(
      to bottom right,
      var(--gradient-text-start),
      var(--gradient-text-end)
    );
    -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;
    -webkit-background-clip: text;
    background-clip: text;
  }
}

While no-parameter mixins like these are somewhat common, it’s much less common to have a function without parameters, since a simple value can be captured in a variable or custom property instead.

Parameters and internal logic

By far the more common reason to use a function or mixin is the ability to define parameters that alter the output based on different input. For example, a darken() function would accept two parameters: a color, and an amount to darken that color.

In some cases (like darken()) the internal function logic can be represented by an inline calculation using existing CSS features. In those situations, a custom function could still provide more concise and easy-to-use shorthand around a more complex calc() or relative color adjustment.

More complex use-cases may require conditional statements or more complex ‘flow control’ such as loops. For example, a combination of mixins might generate a full set of color-theme properties based on a single origin color. In Sass, it might looks something like this:

@use 'sass:color';
@use 'sass:math';

@mixin tint-shade($color, $name, $steps: 2) {
  --#{$name}: #{$color};

  $step: math.div(100%, ($steps + 1));

  @for $i from 1 through $steps {
    $amount: $step * $i;
    --#{$name}-t#{$i}: #{color.mix(white, $color, $amount)};
    --#{$name}-s#{$i}: #{color.mix(black, $color, $amount)};
  }
}

@mixin theme($color, $type: 'complement') {
  /* generate tints and shades for the main color */
  @include tint-shade($color, 'primary');

  @if $type == 'complement' {
    $complement: color.adjust($color, $hue: 180deg);
    @include tint-shade($complement, 'complement');
  } @else if $type == 'triad' {
    /* logic for triad themes… */
  }
  /* etc… */
}

html {
  @include theme(blue);
}

The resulting output CSS would be:

html {
  /* generate tints and shades for the main color */
  --primary: blue;
  --primary-t1: #5555ff;
  --primary-s1: #0000aa;
  --primary-t2: #aaaaff;
  --primary-s2: #000055;
  --complement: yellow;
  --complement-t1: #ffff55;
  --complement-s1: #aaaa00;
  --complement-t2: #ffffaa;
  --complement-s2: #555500;
  /* etc… */
}

The ability to declare this logic in CSS rather than a pre-processor would provide several benefits:

Existing Proposal for Custom Functions

In July of 2022, Johannes Odland proposed ‘Declarative custom functions’ in the CSS Working Group issue tracker. Since then, the proposal has gone through several revisions and updates.

The current (2023-08-08) proposal in that thread suggests that:

There are also several example use-cases, such as this function for fluid typography:

@custom-function --fluid-ratio(
  --min-width,
  --max-width
) {
  result: clamp(
    0%,
    100% * (100vw - var(--min-width)) / (var(--max-width) - var(--min-width)),
    100%
  );
}

p {
  font-size: mix(--fluid-ratio(375px, 1920px), 1rem, 1.25rem);
  padding: mix(--fluid-ratio(375px, 700px), 1rem, 2rem);
}

Or a function for generating checkerboard background-images:

@custom-function --checkerboard(--size) {
   result: linear-gradient(
        45deg,
        silver 25%,
        transparent 25%,
        transparent 75%,
        silver 75%
      )
      0px 0px / var(--size) var(--size),
    linear-gradient(
        45deg,
        silver 25%,
        transparent 25%,
        transparent 75%,
        silver 75%
      )
      calc(var(--size) / 2) calc(var(--size) / 2) / var(--size) var(--size);
}

.used {
  background: --checkerboard(32px);
}

For these use-case, custom functions could be a simple wrapper for inserting parameters into existing functions like calc(). Tab Atkins has suggested a math-only version of this would be simplest to implement. While that might be a useful first-step, it quickly falls short of the use-cases I’ve seen. I would prefer to start with a more fully-featured approach, and work backwards to an attainable level 1 implementation if needed.

In addition to some bike-shedding of the syntax, there are several more open questions in the thread:

I hope to expand on this proposal, and explore some of those questions along the way.

Defining a function: the @function rule

In order to define a custom function, we need several bits of information:

The proposed syntax (with a few adjustments) could look something like:

@function <function-name> [( <parameter-list> )]? {
  <function-rules>

  @return <result>;
}

The function-name is a dashed-ident. If multiple functions have the same name, then functions in a higher cascade layer take priority, and functions defined later have priority within a given layer. This matches the behavior of other name-defining at-rules.

It may also be useful to define an intended ‘type’ (e.g. color or length) for the function, so that it can be validated at parse time. Like custom properties, there is still a chance that a function’s output will be invalid at computed value time, but we can at least ensure that the function is intended to return an appropriate syntax for the context where it is being called.

Extending the above syntax, I would imagine something like:

@function <function-name> [( <parameter-list> )]? [returns <syntax>]? {
  <function-rules>

  @return <result>;
}

On first glance, it seems like <syntax> should be a quoted string allowing the same subset of CSS Types provided by the @property { syntax: … } descriptor. I’m not sure if that’s true, or if types are distinct from syntaxes, and we can potentially support with a simpler syntax (without quotes or brackets).

Returning values

The specified <result> value can accept the same broad CSS syntax as custom property values. At computed value time, that output can be resolved and validated against the property that called the function.

I like an at-rule syntax (e.g. @return) rather than a result descriptor.

François Remy has proposed setting a custom property with the same name as the function, and that property is treated as the resulting value. Lea Verou suggested making the property name customizable in the prelude.

I prefer a syntax that is more consistent and reliable. If we use a descriptor, it should have a non-custom ident like return or result. I don’t see any utility that comes from allowing this functionality to be renamed in each function, or requiring that name to be determined by authors, or putting it in the author’s custom-ident name space. Those all seem to me like ways of inviting typos and confusion, without any clear gain.

Matching the function name seems to me extra fragile – as you could never rename one without also updating the other. Still, either approach could work, and provide the same basic behavior. We can continue to bike-shed the details.

If multiple values are returned, we could either make the function invalid, or determine which one is used. If we support nested at-rules in functions, it would be useful to allow multiple returns – but if that’s not possible in level 1, it may be simpler to invalidate the function.

While many languages allow an ‘eager’ first-takes-precedence function return, CSS often uses a last-takes-precedence approach – both in the cascade of properties, and to resolve naming conflicts (e.g. keyframes). Either approach should work here, though I would lean towards the latter for the sake of internal consistency. That consistency expectation would be even more essential if we use a property-like syntax.

Parameter lists

Each <parameter> in the <parameter-list> must have a <name> and <syntax> (or type). Type options should include a ‘universal’ syntax for general CSS string/tokens.

A <default-value> could be provided here as an author convenience – but the tradeoff might not be worth it. Default values in this context should be distinct from ‘initial’ values of a globally-registered custom property. Initial values come with additional restrictions, such as being computationally-independent when the syntax is defined. These defaults should behave more like fallback values in the var() syntax, used when the passed-in argument is guaranteed-invalid.

Defining all three aspects in the function prelude (name, type, and default) adds a fair amount of extra baggage to the syntax. My initial proposal included special @property-like descriptor blocks to make that possible, but it may not be worth the effort. A var() (or var()-like arg()) syntax would already allow for fallback values.

Removing that requirement, we could have a syntax like:

@function --function-name(
  --arg: type,
  --another-arg: type
) returns type { … }

Function rules

The <function-rules> can include custom property declarations (which are scoped to the function), as well as conditional at-rules (which may contain further nested custom properties and @return values). Element-specific conditions (such as container queries) would be resolved for each element that calls the function.

My assumption would be that custom properties defined inside the function are not available on elements where the function is called. However, it’s clear that authors will expect to reference external custom properties from inside functions – using some variation of dynamic scope, and ‘shadowing’ behavior.

As far as I can tell, only custom properties, args/variables, and conditional rules are useful inside a function definition. Functions have no output besides their returned value, so nested selectors, built-in properties, and name-defining rules are not necessary or meaningful. I don’t think there’s any need for these things to invalidate the entire function, but they should be ignored and discarded.

An example function using conditional rules to return one of multiple values:

@function --sizes(
  --s: length,
  --m: length,
  --l: length,
) returns length {
  --min: 16px;

  @media (inline-size < 20em) {
    @return max(var(--min), var(--s, 1em));
  }
  @media (20em < inline-size < 50em) {
    @return max(var(--min), var(--m, 1em + 0.5vw));
  }
  @media (50em < inline-size) {
    @return max(var(--min), var(--l, 1.2em + 1vw));
  }
}

Calling functions

When calling functions, we may want to allow a broad syntax for argument values – including values that contain commas. That’s been specified in other places using ; syntax, though it hasn’t been implemented anywhere. There’s an active discussion about the best way to handle this more generally in issue #9539: Better handling of arguments with commas.

For more complex functions it may be useful to use named parameters rather than a positional syntax. There’s been some pushback, suggesting we start with positional-arguments only.

The most direct solution if we do want to support named arguments would be to allow the full declaration syntax here – though I’m not sure if that’s viable:

button {
  background: --contrast(--color: pink; --ratio: 0.7);
}

If positional and named arguments are allowed in the same function call, the common convention is to require all positional values come before any named values to avoid confusion:

button {
  background: --contrast(pink; --ratio: 0.7;);
}

Putting it all together

Adapting the fluid ratio function above to the proposed syntax:

@function --fluid-ratio(
  --min-width: length,
  --max-width: length,
) returns percentage {
  --min: var(--min-width, 300px);
  --max: var(--max-width, 2000px)l
  --scale: calc(var(--max) - var(--min));
  --position: calc(100vw - var(--min));
  --fraction: calc(var(--position) / var(--scale));

  @return clamp(
    0%,
    100% * var(--fraction),
    100%
  );
}

p {
  font-size: calc-mix(--fluid-ratio(375px; 1920px), 1rem, 1.25rem);
  padding: calc-mix(--fluid-ratio(375px; 700px), 1rem, 2rem);
}

We could also consider moving the mix() logic into the function:

@function --fluid-mix(
  --min-value: length,
  --max-value: length,
  --from-width: length,
  --to-width: length
) returns length {
  --from: var(--from-width, var(--fluid-min, 375px));
  --to: var(--to-width, var(--fluid-max, 1920px));
  --scale: calc(var(--to) - var(--from));
  --position: calc(100vw - var(--from));
  --fraction: calc(var(--position) / var(--scale));
  --progress: clamp(0%, 100% * var(--fraction), 100%);

  @return calc-mix(var(--progress), var(--min-value), var(--max-value));
}

p {
  font-size: --fluid-mix(1rem; 1.25rem);
  padding: --fluid-mix(1rem; 2rem; 375px; 700px);
}

Defining a mixin: the @mixin rule

Rather than returning a single value, mixins return entire declarations and potentially entire nested rule blocks. While much of the function syntax could be re-purposed, we would need an additional way to manage property scoping – clearly marking what rule blocks are internal, and which should be part of the output.

@mixin <mixin-name> [( <parameter-list> )]? {
  <mixin-rules>
}

Again, when there are multiple mixins that use the same name, the last mixin with that name takes precedence.

Mixin rules and output

The simplest approach to nested rules and output would be to treat the inside of a mixin definition the same as any rule-block nested context. Anything we can put inside a rule block can be put inside a mixin, and will be output where the mixin is called (with any parameters being replaced first). This will work for many simpler cases:

@mixin --center-content {
  display: grid;
  place-content: center;
}

.page {
  @apply --center-content;
  /*
    display: grid;
    place-content: center;
  */
}
@mixin --clearfix {
  &::after {
    display: block;
    content: "";
    clear: both;
  }

  @supports (display: flow-root) {
    display: flow-root;

    &::after { display: none; }
  }
}

.float-container {
  @apply --clearfix;
  /*
    &::after {
      display: block;
      content: "";
      clear: both;
    }

    @supports (display: flow-root) {
      display: flow-root;

      &::after { display: none; }
    }
  */
}

However, this approach doesn’t allow the mixin to contain any internal logic scoped to the mixin itself. Mixins should be able to use internally scoped custom-properties, and also optionally output custom properties as part of the returned rule block. As things stand, this doesn’t seem relevant to anything other than custom properties. Built-in properties, selectors, and at-rules are only useful for their output.

Given that this issue is specific to custom properties, we could consider a flag such as !private. That flag could be interesting for custom properties in other contexts, but I won’t follow that path unless there’s interest. Alternatively, we could explicitly mark content for output with a block rule version of @return.

Applying mixins: the (new) @apply rule

In order to apply a mixin, we use an @apply rule:

@apply <mixin-name> [(<argument-list>)]?

The <argument-list> syntax can hopefully match the function argument notation, for positional and named arguments, and declaration-like ; delimiters.

When the mixin is resolved, the output of the mixin is inserted where the apply rule was called:

/* declaration */
.float-container {
  @apply --clearfix;
}

/* result */
.float-container {
  &::after {
    display: block;
    content: "";
    clear: both;
  }

  @supports (display: flow-root) {
    display: flow-root;

    &::after { display: none; }
  }
}

There is an additional question about how to handle mixin output at the top level of the document (not nested inside a selector):

@apply --center-content;

As long as there is a selector wrapping the output, this should not be an issue. Even if that selector is simply the parent reference &, that has a well-defined behavior at the top level of documents – referring to the current :scope. However, if the result is bare declarations without any selector, they should be discarded and ignored.

Another example, from a Sass mixin I’ve used on occasion:

@mixin --gradient-text(
  --from-color: color,
  --to-color: color,
  --at-angle: angle,
) {
  --to: var(--to-color, teal);
  --from: var(--from-color, mediumvioletred);
  --angle: var(--at-angle, to bottom right);
  color: var(--from, var(--to));

  @supports (background-clip: text) or (-webkit-background-clip: text) {
    --gradient: linear-gradient(var(--angle), var(--from), var(--to));
    background: var(--gradient, var(--from));
    color: transparent;
    -webkit-background-clip: text;
    background-clip: text;
  }
}

h1 {
  @apply --gradient-text(pink, powderblue);
}

Detailed discussion and open questions

Passing nested content to mixins

Another common feature of Sass mixins is the ability to pass nested content blocks into a mixin, and have the mixin place that content in a specific context. This seems like a feature that could be supported in CSS as well, but would require another mixin-specific at-rule (or similar placeholder). I’ll call it @nested for now:

@mixin --media-medium {
  @media screen and (env(--small) < inline-size < env(--large)) {
    @nested;
  }
}

.grid {
  @apply --media-medium {
    padding: var(--padding-medium, 1em);
  }
}

The expected behavior would be the same as writing:

.grid {
  @media screen and (env(--small) < inline-size < env(--large)) {
    padding: var(--padding-medium, 1em);
  }
}

This seems like something that could be added later, if necessary.

Invalid function fallbacks

Sadly, last-takes-precedence @return behavior doesn’t provide the same benefit here that it has in the cascade – where invalid declarations can be discarded at parse time, falling back on previously declared values. In order to achieve that, we would need to limit functions so that they are the only value in a property. I don’t think that tradeoff makes sense for the use-cases I’ve seen.

I’m also not sure it makes sense to provide function-defined fallback values to return when arguments provided have invalid syntax. Ideally, function fallbacks would be modeled after variable fallbacks – established where the function is called, rather than where it is defined. It’s hard to see where this would fit in the proposed syntax.

One option would be a var()-like wrapper function:

button {
  background: fallback(--contrast(pink; 0.7), black);
}

We could even use the existing var(), but that would result in functions and custom properties sharing a single namespace, which might not be ideal. Maybe the proposed function for first-supported() would also be an option that has broader use? This likely needs more bike-shedding.

Using parameters in conditional rules

Above, I used an example with conditional output using media queries inside the function. Authors may reasonably wish to take this farther and use parameters to define the media queries themselves:

@function --media(
  --breakpoint: length,
  --below: length,
  --above: length
) {
  @media screen and (width < var(--breakpoint)) {
    result: var(--below);
  }
  @media screen and (width >= var(--breakpoint)) {
    result: var(--above);
  }
}

This is a very common use of pre-processor mixins, and a common use-case for the proposed inline if() and media() functions as well.

As I understand it, that will not be possible as written above, for the same reasons var() is not currently allowed in media-query conditions. However, the issues are specific to cascaded values that need to be resolved at computed value time. Passing static arguments from a parameter should not pose the same problem.

If we had a new way of accessing values passed in – I’ll use arg() for the sake of argument – simple value substitution should be possible:

@function --media(
  --breakpoint: length,
  --below: length,
  --above: length
) {
  @media screen and (width < arg(--breakpoint)) {
    result: var(--below);
  }
  @media screen and (width >= arg(--breakpoint)) {
    result: var(--above);
  }
}

html {
  /* this works fine, since the argument is accessed with `var()` */
  padding: --media(40em, 0, var(--padding, 1em));

  /* this errors, since the argument is accessed with `arg()` */
  margin: --media(var(--break, 40em), 0, 1em);
}

In the above example, the padding declaration would be valid since a static value can be passed along to the media query arg() – but the margin declaration would fail since it supplies a custom property to a media query condition.

It’s not clear to me if parameters used this way would need to be explicitly marked in advance for any reason? As proposed here, it would be up to function authors to document and communicate which parameters can accept cascading variables, and which can not.

Argument conditions and loops

With both mixins and functions it can be useful to have conditions based on the arguments passed in. For example, we might want to pass in one of several established keywords, and return a different value depending which keyword is used:

@function --link(
  --theme: *;
) {
  @when (arg(--theme): light) {
    result: env(--link-light);
  } @else {
    result: env(--link-dark);
  }
}

It’s not clear to me if the proposed @when/@else features can be adapted to this use-case, or if it would need to be a distinct set of similar flow controls.

Similarly, as we saw in the tint-shade example earlier, it can be useful to loop over a set number of repetitions (for loop) or a set list of items (each loop).

While these would be helpful features for authors, they are not required for (or dependent on) an initial implementation of mixins or functions. They feel like distinct features that would go well together.

Can we allow the <calc-sum> syntax?

This question was raised by Brandon McConnell in the ‘Declarative Custom Functions’ issue (see point 5, even though it’s not specific to recursion). The goal is to provide custom functions that take raw calc expressions, without being explicitly wrapped in a nested calc() function, similar to the way other math functions work:

.item {
  width: min(100% - 1em, 30em);
}

On the one hand, custom property substitution makes it trivial to capture expressions, and later call them inside a calc() function. This already works:

html {
  --l: 100% - 50%;
  background: hsl(0deg 100% calc(var(--l)));
}

To take it farther, we would need to expose the <calc-sum> grammar as a valid syntax for authors to use.

It might also be worth considering what other syntax/types would be useful to expose – either for parameters specifically, or for property registration more generally. It seems ideal to me if those lists can be kept in alignment.

What about @extend?

In Sass, mixins without parameters also overlap with the @extend feature, which is used to combine related classes – one as an ‘extension’ of the other. In most cases, that has the same intended result as a no-parameter-mixin:

/* extends */
.error {
  border: thin solid maroon;

  &:hover {
    background-color: #fee;
  }
}

.error--serious {
  @extend .error;
  border-width: thick;
}

/* mixin */
@mixin error {
  border: thin solid maroon;

  &:hover {
    background-color: #fee;
  }
}

.error--serious {
  @include error;
  border-width: thick;
}

The difference is that a class definition can be compiled from multiple rule blocks in different style sheets, while a mixin generally has one centralized definition. This is part of the reason extensions have become less common in Sass – it can be difficult to reason about their impact. For now, I think mixins would provide the similar functionality without the same complexity.

If we are interested in exploring @extend at some point, Tab has already written an unofficial draft specification that we can build from.

Can functions be chained, or call themselves?

I would expect that it should be possible to chain function/mixin calls together. A theme-generating mixin should be able to reference a single-color generating mixin or function internally.

It’s less clear to me if recursive function calls are possible or necessary. There are likely use-cases for recursion as a form of looping, but I’m not sure how central they are. This doesn’t seem like a feature requirement in level 1.

Keyframe-based mixins for interpolated values?

There has been a lot of recent discussion around interpolating values between breakpoints for e.g. responsive typography. Conceptually, animation keyframes work well for defining the steps involved – but in this case the result is not technically animated, and interpolated values should ideally not be removed to the animation origin.

To get around that, the most recent proposals involves a new property (tentatively interpolate) that would accept a keyframes name and timeline, then ‘expand in place’ to represent the declarations in the referenced @keyframes rule.

@keyframes typography {
  from {
    font-size: 1.2em;
    line-height: 1.4;
  }
  to {
    font-size: 3em;
    line-height: 1.2;
  }
}

h2 {
  /* declaration, this is all pseudo-code */
  interpolate: typography --container-size ease-in;

  /* result, with interpolated values */
  font-size: /* interpolated… */;
  line-height: /* interpolated… */;
}

Alan Stearns has pointed out in conversations that this is a very mixin-like behavior, and suggested treating keyframes as an existing form of mixin, rather than a new property. Given the same keyframes above, we could consider a syntax like:

h2 {
  /* mixin, this is all pseudo-code */
  @apply typography(--container-size; ease-in);

  /* result, with interpolated values */
  font-size: /* interpolated… */;
  line-height: /* interpolated… */;
}

If that clutters the mixin namespace, another approach might be requiring dashed-ident mixin names, and providing some built-in mixins such as:

h2 {
  /* declaration, this is all pseudo-code */
  @apply keyframes(typography; --container-size; ease-in);

  /* result, with interpolated values */
  font-size: /* interpolated… */;
  line-height: /* interpolated… */;
}

Acknowledgments

This proposal is based on an existing discussion with input from:

I’ve also incorporated feedback along the way from:

Todo