- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:10:42 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
[Tab Atkins Jr.:] > It's extremely unrestricted compared to normal CSS. The sentence just > emphasizes that there's no particular grammar for the property, in the > sense that normal CSS properties have. No one argues that it's not less restricted. But there *is* a restriction and I think it is suggested that in a specification words such as 'unrestricted' are best used to describe an absolute state vs. using them as a loose comparative e.g. as a marketing department would use 'unlimited' to describe certain flat pricing schemes. (Granted, 'unlimited minutes on nights and week-ends' always sounded hilariously contradictory to me but given its popularity maybe I'm the idiot...) Anyway. I'm well above my weekly bikeshedding quota already.
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 19:11:20 UTC