W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2011

Re: The obvious confusion of `edge'

From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:43:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMOZ1BvCGTD0FN1pfp01D582V=9QjT_hRBVt80xaOg2a5D6MoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 20:33, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To clarify further, it is confusing and unreasonable, because the word
>> `edge' is first introduced as a synonym for `perimeter', and now it is
>> also being used to refer to part of the perimeter (or, should I say `edge'?)
>
> Both usages of the term are appropriate and normal in English.
>
>
>>>>    * The phrase `top edge' is equivalent to the phrase `top of the edge'
>>>>      (or at least the `edge' in `top edge' has no meaning by itself).
>>>
>>> No, it refers to the top edge - that is, the top segment of the
>>> perimeter.  I think your trouble here is that you're stuck on the fact
>>> that the *entire* perimeter of the box is called an "edge", and then
>>> that edge is broken up into four sub-edges.  An edge can be made of
>>> edges!
>>
>> Look at what you've just done.
>>
>> You've had to clarify yourself by using `perimeter' and `sub-edge'.
>>
>> You essentially admit that terms that the spec uses are completely
>> unreasonable and inadequate for expressing yourself precisely.
>
> No, I defined the terms more clearly
> ...

I'm glad we agree there's room for improvement.
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 20:44:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT