- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:38:37 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 06/26/2013 03:02 AM, Simon Sapin wrote: >> Le 26/06/2013 00:12, L. David Baron a écrit : >>> I'm a little concerned about the "component value" terminology; I'd >>> prefer using a term that doesn't involve "value". But I don't have >>> a better idea right now. >> >> Previous revisions of this spec used "primitive" for this concept, until >> we noticed that the concept is the same as in Values >> & Units: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#value-defs >> >> But I understand the desire to make a distinction. Does "primitive" sound >> better than "component value"? > > Maybe "component primitive" instead of "component value"? > Then at least it ties back to the concept of "component value", > but implies it's a slightly lower-level concept. It's really not a lower-level concept, though. It's exactly the same level as V&U's "component value". No additional filtering/processing happens to the values after this point. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 23:39:24 UTC