- From: Nick Sherman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 22:05:46 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Another thought on @Crissov’s comments … > As far as I know, none of them have been improved (or deprecated) unless the new alternative also added new features The main difference with most of the other unfortunate naming choices is that `font-stretch` support still hasn't been widely implemented (if at all). Between this and the expansion of functionality with variable fonts I mentioned before, I really hope this is enough to convince @litherum to open this issue up again. It seems much more logical to improve the naming for a thing that still hasn't been implemented than it would be to have to explain to confused developers and designers for the rest of time that `font-stretch` isn't actually doing what the name implies. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nicksherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/551#issuecomment-265287876 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 22:05:53 UTC