- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:37:23 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> On Oct 10, 2014, at 8:09 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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: >> >>> ... >>> >>> 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>. If we do that, can we also alias 'border-radius' into 'corner-radius'? I know this confuses many people into thinking it is only for when you have visible borders, when really it's affect is just as dramatic on a filled-in background with no borders. It looks like it belongs with the other 'border-*' properties that are components of the 'border' shorthand, but it doesn't (it isn't).
Received on Sunday, 12 October 2014 06:37:51 UTC