Sass Language & Compliant Implementations

[chriseppstein]

But wait! this is not only to implement SASS, but also to improve the language for better consistency,
syntax and performance. And yes, this means we're free to accept new language feature requests.

Sass is a language. That language is defined by the ruby reference implementation. We welcome other implementations of the language and allow them to call themselves a "Sass implementation" when they adhere to this requirement. The reason for this is very important, users of Sass expect their files to be able to be shared across projects, across implementations. The ecosystem of Sass users and the community that has supports it requires language adherence for cohesion. Without it, the community will fracture and the value of Sass is diminished.

Clearly, you love Sass enough to work so hard on it. I would encourage you to please work with @nex3 and myself for all changes to the language. I promise you, the language is not dead, we have big things planned for sass 4.0 and if you start implementing these new features without them being in ruby sass you'll be in a tough spot going forward. How can you support the new features especially if they conflict with your own custom additions? It will make you either give up your Sass compatibility or break backwards compat for your own users.

Thanks.

[c9s]

I appreciate your email. :) I haven't decided what feature will be in my project yet.

[chriseppstein]

Fair enough. Please do not call your project a Sass implementation if you decide to deviate from the reference implementation's features. That is a name reserved for projects that are compliant implementations.

[nex3]

Why was this closed? The README still claims this is a Sass implementation and also that it adds additional features.

[scottkellum]

@c9s bump, curious as to the status of this?