Oh, now I see. Yes, the namespace node, "properties" is needed there. Sorry, I spoke out of ignorance. The CSS namespace is different than the API namespace. The reason we need "properties" is not just that the subsequent nodes might be duplicated, but that there is no encapsulation within specific objects to prevent it. Let's keep "properties" and all of the other namespace nodes that define the various sections of our CSS documentation. +Scott On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:21 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe Scott means whether there are css/properties/foo and > css/functions/foo (for example). > > ☆*PhistucK* > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 14 Feb 2013, at 19:58, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi Julee! >> > >> > I think we'd be safe eliminating the "properties" namespace node - as >> long as there is no like named other CSS element such as a selector or unit >> or something. I'm not sure if this is the case or not. >> > >> > I'll defer to the experts - like Chris Mills (ha! got you back, Chris!) >> >> ;-) >> >> I'm not 100% sure I understand the question, sorry. >> >> we have >> >> css/tutorials >> css/properties >> css/selectors >> css/functions >> css/atrules >> css/mediaqueries >> css/data_types >> css/colors >> >> and that's it for now, afaik. >> >> >
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 17:16:21 UTC