W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webed@w3.org > December 2011

Re: CSS shorthand reference

From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:27:38 +0000
Cc: "Richard D. Worth" <rdworth@gmail.com>, public-webed@w3.org
Message-Id: <440D2DF4-C66F-4131-B28A-88067F9722A5@opera.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
On 6 Dec 2011, at 15:03, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Hi, Chris-
> 
> On 12/6/11 8:32 AM, Richard D. Worth wrote:
>> Looking good. I fixed a few minor typos, added some oxford commas,
> 
> See!?  See!?  You should use Oxford commas, Chris!!!
> 
> (I recently abused Chris about this topic offlist... ^_^)

Damn you all ;-)

In all honestly, I'm not generally a fan of the serial comma, but I don't really care what we use, as long as it's consistent and it gets done.

> 
>> made
>> the indentation in code samples consistent, and made the headings
>> consistent (some had 'shorthand' others did not, I opted for not).
>> 
>> Wasn't sure how to fix wording on "rarely want to go this granular, for
>> will probably use simply"
>> 
>> Also, can we standardize on spelling it "color" instead of "colour" as
>> it's consistent with the property in the specs?
> 
> I agree... though localization is good, property values, and references to terms used in them, should be synced with specs.

Again, because I am a whiny Brit, I prefer English spelling, but I definitely agree that having spelling as per specs will reduce confusion for beginners.
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 15:28:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:02 UTC