- From: Devin Rousso via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 17:52:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Frankly, I think that `thickness` is the least likely to be misinterpreted (vs `weight` or `width`), as it's the most directly applicable to what's visible. If I saw a line underneath some text (broad generalization), I wouldn't ask "how _wide_ is the line" or "how much _weight_ does the line have", I'd ask "how _thick_ is the line". I understand that there's a precedent in the typographic world, but I don't think that should be the entire reason for naming something, as I don't think we can reasonably expect _every_ (or even most) CSS authors to be familiar with typographic terminology. I also agree with @Crissov ([comment](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4138#issuecomment-517195456)), in that there are other properties we could add that _would_ be better off using `width`/`height`, and changing this name would preclude that. Also, given that it has already been implemented twice ([as @litherum stated](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4138#issuecomment-513639036)), that should already be reason enough to keep it as is. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dcrousso Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4138#issuecomment-519202893 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2019 17:52:31 UTC