- From: James Craig via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:44:47 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@inoas wrote: > The variable/setting itself declares that it is only about reduction not about disabling. If you're talking about the term "reduced" in the property name, I think we're mincing semantics. Disabling motion is a reduction of motion, albeit a complete one. > Because of the choice of words in this PR `prefers-reduced-motion: disabled` is ambiguous in the first place. This argument is a straw man fallacy. The PR does not include `prefers-reduced-motion: disabled` but if the value were needed a later time, it could be an unambiguous `no-motion`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by cookiecrook Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/586#issuecomment-265201881 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 16:44:53 UTC