diff --git a/content/blog/2024/removing-mixins.md b/content/blog/2024/removing-mixins.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..70296a67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/blog/2024/removing-mixins.md
@@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
+---
+title: Can you un-mix a mixin?
+sub: Rethinking the CSS mixin proposal after CSS Day
+author: miriam
+image:
+  src: blog/2024/blender.jpg
+  alt: A clear kitchen blender filled with chopped fruit and greens
+date: 2024-06-11
+tags:
+  - Article
+  - Sass
+  - CSS
+  - CSSWG
+  - Mixins & Functions
+summary: |
+  The CSS Working Group
+  has agreed to move forward
+  with CSS-native mixins.
+  But some recent mixin-like
+  CSS tricks have an advantage
+  that the official proposal doesn't account for:
+  they make it easy to remove a mixin
+  after it's already been mixed in.
+---
+
+{% callout 'CSS Layout Workshop' %}
+If you have questions about this feature or others like it,
+we'll be getting deep into modern CSS
+with live Q&A
+at the **Cascade Layouts Workshop**, June 24-26.
+[Register now!](/workshops/cascading-layouts/#register-now)
+{% endcallout %}
+
+## Mixin substitution with `@apply`
+
+I've been thinking about
+[CSS-native mixins](https://css.oddbird.net/sasslike/mixins-functions/).
+How do we create re-usable blocks of styling
+that can be 'mixed in' to various selectors,
+based on arbitrary conditions?
+I made [a proposal](https://css.oddbird.net/sasslike/mixins-functions/)
+last year, and it was
+[adopted by the CSS Working Group](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9350#issuecomment-1939628591)
+for further exploration and specification.
+That proposal is similar to
+[mixins in Sass](https://sass-lang.com/guide/#mixins) and other pre-processors,
+and builds on CSS Nesting:
+
+```css
+/* define it once */
+@mixin --visually-hidden {
+  clip: rect(0 0 0 0);
+  clip-path: inset(50%);
+  height: 1px;
+  overflow: hidden;
+  position: absolute;
+  white-space: nowrap;
+  width: 1px;
+}
+
+/* use in various places */
+[visually-hidden] {
+  @apply --visually-hidden;
+}
+
+[hidden-when=small] {
+  @container (inline-size < 20ch) {
+    @apply --visually-hidden;
+  }
+}
+```
+
+At parse time,
+the browser can
+(with some minor caveats)
+substitute each mixin call
+with a nested block of declarations:
+
+```css
+[visually-hidden] {
+  & {
+    clip: rect(0 0 0 0);
+    clip-path: inset(50%);
+    /* … */
+  }
+}
+
+[hidden-when=small] {
+  @container (inline-size < 20ch) {
+    & {
+      clip: rect(0 0 0 0);
+      clip-path: inset(50%);
+      /* … */
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+This is a straight-forward approach,
+that should be possible to implement.
+As authors
+we can build on that
+by including selectors and conditions
+inside the mixin code,
+or by passing in arguments.
+It's a useful feature,
+but it has some limitations.
+
+## Style queries and 'layered toggles'
+
+We don't have CSS-native mixins yet,
+but we do have style queries
+(in Chromium, and Webkit beta)
+which can be used for mixin-like behavior:
+
+```css
+/* define the mixin */
+@container style(--fancy-em) {
+  em {
+    background: linear-gradient(
+      to bottom right,
+      var(--fancy-em)
+    );
+    color: white;
+
+    @supports (background-clip: text) or (-webkit-background-clip: text) {
+      -webkit-background-clip: text;
+      background-clip: text;
+      color: transparent;
+      font-weight: bold;
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+/* apply the mixin by giving --fancy-em a value */
+p {
+  --fancy-em: mediumvioletred, teal;
+}
+```
+
+(You can see this [style query demo](https://codepen.io/miriamsuzanne/pen/qBGXMPg?editors=1100) working in a Chromium browser.)
+
+While that may be useful once supported everywhere,
+it has an even stronger 'nesting' requirement:
+container queries cannot apply styles
+to the container itself.
+The example above works
+because we query the parent paragraph
+to apply styles on nested `em` elements.
+
+[Roman Komarov](https://kizu.dev/)
+has developed another mixin-like syntax
+that works today in all major browsers,
+using '[cyclic toggles](https://kizu.dev/cyclic-toggles/)'
+and `revert-layer` to create what he calls
+[Layered Toggles](https://kizu.dev/layered-toggles/#future-of-mixins):
+
+```css
+@layer defaults {
+  /* any defaults need to be defined in lower layers */
+  p { width: 80%; }
+}
+
+/* Define mixins in a higher layer */
+@layer mixins {
+  *:not(:focus):not(:active) {
+    --hidden: var(--hidden--off);
+    --hidden--off: var(--hidden,);
+    --hidden--on: var(--hidden,);
+
+    clip:
+      var(--hidden--off, revert-layer)
+      var(--hidden--on, rect(0 0 0 0));
+    clip-path:
+      var(--hidden--off, revert-layer)
+      var(--hidden--on, inset(50%));
+    height:
+      var(--hidden--off, revert-layer)
+      var(--hidden--on, 1px);
+    /* etc… */
+  }
+}
+
+/* apply the mixin by overriding the custom property */
+[hidden-when=small] {
+  @container (inline-size < 40ch) {
+    --hidden: var(--hidden--on);
+  }
+}
+```
+
+It's not the most elegant solution,
+but it works --
+and can apply style changes directly, today,
+without any nesting.
+
+## Custom properties _cascade_
+
+'The Cascade' in CSS
+is an algorithm to resolve conflicts.
+Every property (including custom properties)
+on a given element
+can only have a _single value_.
+If the same property is declared twice,
+only one of those declarations will apply --
+the one with higher _cascade priority_
+(specificity, layers, source order, etc).
+
+What stood out to me
+during Roman's
+[talk at CSS Day](https://cssday.nl/2024/speakers#roma)
+was the fact that both these pseudo-mixin solutions
+use custom properties to apply the mixin.
+As a result,
+the mixing-in declaration --
+the code that applies or doesn't apply the mixin
+-- _cascades_.
+
+That leads to an interesting feature:
+a mixin can be applied in one place,
+and removed somewhere else.
+Once 'turned off',
+it's as though the mixin was never applied at all.
+The properties simply revert to their
+un-mixed-in state:
+
+{% import 'embed.macros.njk' as embed %}
+
+{{ embed.codepen(
+  id='dyEzQPz',
+  title='Un-mixing a mixin',
+  user='miriamsuzanne',
+  tab='css,result'
+) }}
+
+
+## It's hard to un-mix a previously mixed-in mixin once mixed
+
+We don't get that same behavior
+with the `@apply` rule as currently defined.
+If we apply the same mixin twice
+with different values,
+both rules will be replaced by the internals of the mixin.
+
+```css
+@mixin --card(--color) {
+  background: var(--color);
+  border: thick solid color-mix(in oklch, var(--color), black);
+}
+
+p { @apply --card(pink); }
+p:last-child { @apply --card(powderblue); }
+```
+
+The result after substitution will be:
+
+```css
+p {
+  background: pink;
+  border: thick solid color-mix(in oklch, pink, black);
+}
+p:last-child {
+  background: powderblue;
+  border: thick solid color-mix(in oklch, powderblue, black);
+}
+```
+
+In some cases,
+that will be fine.
+The properties inside the mixin
+will continue to cascade.
+Each declaration of `background` overrides the previous,
+and the same with `border`.
+In the end, we get the expected result.
+
+But we can't 'remove' the mixin,
+or any of those property definitions,
+we can only override them with new values.
+That can be a real problem.
+
+Let's go back to our `visually-hidden` example.
+We should really clarify that
+we don't want it applied when an element has focus.
+With the custom property,
+we can override a single property
+wherever necessary:
+
+```css
+[visually-hidden] {
+  --hidden: var(--hidden--on);
+}
+
+[hidden-when=small] {
+  @container (inline-size < 20ch) {
+    --hidden: var(--hidden--on);
+  }
+}
+
+:focus,
+:active {
+  --hidden: var(--hidden--off);
+}
+```
+
+But with `@apply` we either have to
+plan ahead for all conditions
+_before we apply the mixin_:
+
+```css
+[visually-hidden]:not(:focus):not(:active) {
+  @apply --visually-hidden;
+}
+```
+
+Or we need to carefully revert
+every property of the mixin.
+But… revert _to what value_?
+Maybe we can use `revert-layer`
+and some clever layering?
+We could even build the off switch into our mixin:
+
+```css
+/* when '--off' is undefined we get the output */
+@mixin --visually-hidden(--off) {
+  clip: var(--off, rect(0 0 0 0));
+  clip-path: var(--off, inset(50%));
+  height: var(--off, 1px);
+  overflow: var(--off, hidden);
+  position: var(--off, absolute);
+  white-space: var(--off, nowrap);
+  width: var(--off, 1px);
+}
+
+@layer base {
+  [visually-hidden] {
+    @apply --visually-hidden;
+  }
+}
+
+/* put our overrides in a higher layer to revert from */
+@layer overrides {
+  :focus,
+  :active {
+    /* set --off to revert-layer */
+    @apply --visually-hidden(revert-layer);
+  }
+}
+```
+
+That provides an off switch,
+but it requires some careful planning ahead,
+and the layering requirement seems fragile.
+
+## Should mixin calls cascade?
+
+This isn't a new or theoretical issue.
+After years of using Sass mixins,
+it's something I've encountered many times.
+In most situations
+it's possible to work around the issue,
+but sometimes it becomes quite complicated
+to get all the logic right in one place.
+
+The cascade is useful for these situations.
+When we're defining new CSS features
+we often ask _should these behaviors cascade together_,
+are they intertwined?
+If so, they belong in the same property.
+
+It seems clear to me that it would be
+useful (at least sometimes)
+for the mixin-application syntax to cascade.
+But before we make any big changes
+we also need to ask:
+
+- Are there places we _don't want_ that behavior?
+  Places we want to call a mixin twice with different arguments,
+  and have both apply?
+  I haven't thought of good examples,
+  but they might exist?
+- Can we design a cascading mixin-application syntax?
+  We intentionally avoided cascading mixin _definitions_ --
+  one mixin name can't refer to different things in different places.
+  Would cascading `@apply` rules have similar issues?
+
+I don't think we want something like
+the JavaScript `removeEventListener()` function,
+which requires a careful matching of arguments.
+I'd like to avoid any `@un-apply`-style rules.
+That has always seemed fragile to me,
+and I'd rather use the cascade if we can.
+
+What do you think?
+Should mixin calls cascade?
+Are there use cases for both behaviors?
+
+Join me to discuss modern CSS like this
+at the upcoming
+Cascading Layout Workshop online, June 24-26.
+You can register below.
diff --git a/src/images/blog/2024/blender.jpg b/src/images/blog/2024/blender.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..8f0a0143
Binary files /dev/null and b/src/images/blog/2024/blender.jpg differ