W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > February 2013

Re: An question aside (Re: A categorization/placing problem - event/property pages)

From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:21:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CABc02_JY-e5g1Oa3dOBVF=8BcxDb4zTmyJMktuT1-LN8+gi=ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Cc: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, Julee <julee@adobe.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Lance Leonard <Lance.Leonard@microsoft.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
I believe Scott means whether there are css/properties/foo and
css/functions/foo (for example).

☆*PhistucK*


On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 14 Feb 2013, at 19:58, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Julee!
> >
> > I think we'd be safe eliminating the "properties" namespace node - as
> long as there is no like named other CSS element such as a selector or unit
> or something. I'm not sure if this is the case or not.
> >
> > I'll defer to the experts - like Chris Mills (ha! got you back, Chris!)
>
> ;-)
>
> I'm not 100% sure I understand the question, sorry.
>
> we have
>
> css/tutorials
> css/properties
> css/selectors
> css/functions
> css/atrules
> css/mediaqueries
> css/data_types
> css/colors
>
> and that's it for now, afaik.
>
>
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 10:22:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:39 UTC