W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css3-break] minor editorial nits

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:15:32 +0000
To: Mihai Balan <mibalan@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CED5B60A.1656A%stearns@adobe.com>
On 12/17/13, 1:14 AM, "Mihai Balan" <mibalan@adobe.com> wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Stearns [mailto:stearns@adobe.com]
>Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:30 PM
>To: www-style@w3.org
>Subject: [css3-break] minor editorial nits
>
>> 3. And on balance I believe the draft would be much better with this
>> substitution:
>> 
>> s/fragmentainer/fragment container/g
>> 
>
>So you're basically saying that for this particular concept fragmentation
>== fragment? because right now a fragmentainer is a *fragmentation*
>container.
>I'm just trying to better understand the semantic, but I'm at a loss here
>:)

Ah yes, we’d also have to change the three instances of ‘fragmentation
container’:

s/fragmentation container/fragment container/g

Without the -ation, I think the phrase is short enough to avoid the
abominable fragmentainer. And it seems clear enough to me without the
-ation, though I’ve long since reached semantic satiation [1] with the
word fragment.

Thanks,

Alan

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation


Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 16:16:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC