- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:09:14 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:05:18 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> One of the people I follow recently posted the following on Twitter: >> <https://twitter.com/SlexAxton/status/519953582183809024> >> >>> white-space: nowrap; >>> whitespace: no-wrap; >>> >>> Don't pretend like you know. And when you look it up, don't pretend like >>> it makes any sense. >> >> >> I've heard this complaint before, and railed against the dumb keyword >> myself. (Flexbox originally used no-wrap for flex-wrap, but we >> switched to nowrap for consistency with white-space.) >> >> This is one of the few keywords in the language that doesn't use a - >> between words (the only others I know of being values we inherited >> from SVG, like currentcolor). >> >> Anyone have objections to us just aliasing the value as "no-wrap"? >> That way, in a few years, people can just do the logical thing and use >> the value they expect, rather than having to deal with this wart >> forever. > > > I don't particularly like that idea. I think in general old syntax should be > left alone. Adding aliases is not zero cost. > > But if this one thing is a major pain point for authors, then maybe it's > worth it. Is it? I forget it almost every time I use the the stupid value, and I hear grumblings about it relatively constantly. It's also the *very first* mistake on <https://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/mistakes>. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 10 October 2014 15:10:01 UTC