Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-cascade-6] change lower boundary keyword for @scope to "until" (#7943)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade-6] change lower boundary keyword for @scope to "until"`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: close the issue as no-change`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fremy> miriam: this is a bikeshedding issue open for a while<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: the concern is that "scoped to" usually means "it's inside the scope"<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: so it might be confusing to also use "to" to say that the scope goes "from...to"<br>
&lt;fantasai> wfm<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: I have no strong opinion on it<br>
&lt;bramus> q+<br>
&lt;fremy> fremy: wfm too<br>
&lt;astearns> ack bramus<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> q+<br>
&lt;fremy> bramus: no hard feelings, but "to" sounded better to me, because as a non-native English speaker "until" is not very frequent<br>
&lt;fremy> bramus: this might also be related to the next issue<br>
&lt;astearns> ack TabAtkins<br>
&lt;fremy> bramus: if we choose to include the boundaries, "to" might be better<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: there is no clear English word that indicates exclusivity or inclusivity with clarity<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: so I don't think the choice of term is not that important<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: and therefore believe going with the shortest one makes the most sense<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: while I agree with TabAtkins that the inclusivity is not clear in either wording<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> "range from 0 to 3" can easily mean [0,1,2,3] or [0,1,2] depending on context. Even sometimes [1,2].<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: that said, I can understand the other argument<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: but maybe we could use something else than a word, like the > sign?<br>
&lt;bramus> q+<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> I think we should avoid `>` next to selectors, due its context-specific meaning there.<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: that would avoid the problems with the choice of an English word<br>
&lt;astearns> ack bramus<br>
&lt;fremy> bramus: the > sign is also a combinator<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: but scoping extends in the same direction as the combinator<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: so not a problem for me, though I still like "to" a bit better I guess<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/other argument/other argument about how "scoped to the X element" means using X as the scoping root/<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: there doesn't seem to be passionate comments for any of the comments<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: so maybe we should just leave things as they are, for lack of a huge reason to change<br>
&lt;bramus> +1<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: "to" is easier to spell, and not any more precise<br>
&lt;fantasai> "thru", to use Tab's spelling :p<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: ok, let's propose to close no change<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: yes, and if someone has a stronger argument or more data etc we could revisit<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> The only clear range-based english keywords I've ever really seen were in Lisp's LOOP macro - "0 to " was inclusive, "0 below 3" was exclusive.<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: like a more compelling rationale or something<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: any objection?<br>
&lt;fremy> RESOLVED: close the issue as no-change<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7943#issuecomment-1450516018 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2023 17:12:18 UTC