- From: Christoph Päper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:47:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Naming isn’t really something that implementers, i.e. browser vendors, should have the last say in. Like @astearns says, it’s about the “author experience”. > ## [Module interactions](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#placement) > This module extends the `width`, `height`, `min-width`, `min-height`, `max-width`, `max-height`, […] features defined in [CSS21] chapter 10 […] The respective level-3 module to replace the level-2 reference would be [[CSS-**BOX**]](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-box/) if I’m not mistaken. At the risk of sounding annoying, the `box-` prefix (and `box` shorthand) seems appropriate to me, although it is implied in most properties currently. (Fun fact: `box-sizing` was put into [[CSS-UI]](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui/#propdef-box-sizing) back in the day – i.e. 200*X* –, just because it was thought to be one of the earliest modules to reach REC status that wasn’t feature-frozen already.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by Crissov Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/820#issuecomment-281931204 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 08:47:51 UTC