- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:30:37 -0800
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: >> > There are lots of discussions here around why list-item is fine. Let's >> > try >> > considering the other side: why do you think adding an alias for them is >> > not >> > good? If aliasing makes things less confusing for future use, I think it >> > should be fine. What would be hurt if we do that? >> >> "Why not" isn't a good reason to add things to a language. Additions >> should have a strong justification behind them. Aliasing should only >> be done when the name is *manifestly* wrong or confusing; imo, it >> should only be done when we're *deprecating* the previous name as a >> mistake. > > > Then, could we deprecate the current names and changing them to 'display: > marked' and 'marker-type', 'marker-position', etc? These names do seem to > make more sense than the current ones, and make it clearer about their > relationship with the '::marker' pseudo-element. We don't typically deprecate very widely-used names, unless they're a *huge* mistake. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 01:31:25 UTC