Re: [CSSWG][css-shapes] CSS Shapes Level 1 Candidate Recommendation

> On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 7/23/15, 5:06 PM, "Philippe Wittenbergh" <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 07:37, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Embiggening is clear even to people
>>>>> who haven't heard the word before (unlike cromulent).
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know if that is true for all, including all non-native English
>>>> speakers.
>>> 
>>> What he said…
>>> As a non-native English reader, I had to look it up (Dictionary.app: “no
>>> result found”).
>> 
>> This is a compelling reason for me to change it. I’ll use “Enlarging”
>> instead.
> 
> Not to be too nit-picky, but I’d suggest “Expanding”. “Enlarging” sounds like you are scaling it up instead of applying a positive offset. The version of Adobe Illustrator I have at home has “Offset Path” that is more or less the same, but it allows negative offsets. For border-image, we had ‘border-image-outset’, so you could say “Outsetting”, but that isn’t really meaning what the typical dictionary definition is: setting out on a journey (though Googling “offsetting path” can make it more clear).

FYI, the Hans Muller blog post used the word “expanded”:

“A shape-outside boundary can be expanded by a CSS length property called shape-margin,”

http://hansmuller-webkit.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-simpler-algorithm-for-css-shapes.html

Received on Sunday, 26 July 2015 19:14:55 UTC