- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:58:06 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "dglazkov@google.com" <dglazkov@google.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 4, 2014, at 6:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: >> I don't really care about the exact syntax; the combinator vs. pseudo debate is a recurring one though. The main reason people prefer a name sounds largely cosmetic to me i.e. that combinators are so cryptic-looking, while Tab's usability argument is also reasonable. So I'll ask the dumb question: any reason we couldn't use mnemonics or even words for future combinators? We'd presumably still need to agree on a single character prefix to disambiguate these names from element names but what are the cons? >> >> Still doesn't answer the overall encapsulation issue but here is to moar bikeshed. > > Mind taking this to another thread? This is an interesting avenue to > run down, and I don't want it lost in the larger conversation here. Fair. Now at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0115.html
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 03:58:36 UTC