- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:36:33 -0500
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 12/21/2010 08:56 PM, John Hudson wrote: > >> "Free" means no restrictions, right? Assuming so, because the most >> relaxed level is not "free" (we have the least set of restrictions >> that nobody would want to disable), I guess we should use: >> strict, normal, relaxed > > If you want a four level structure in which the least strict options > represented 'the least set of restrictions that nobody would want to > disable', I suggest > > Strict > Normal > Relaxed > Minimal While that list seems reasonable in isolation, I don't think "line-break: minimal" carries the right connotation: it seems to mean "minimize line breaks". > Looser and Loose are not good terms because they are not typical antonyms > to Strict, and in a typographic setting the term loose usually applies to > spatial relationships (e.g. loose letter spacing, loose line spacing) > rather than something like linebreak logic. The antonym to "strict" in this case is "lenient", but that's a little hard to spell. "Loose" can be used in the sense of "not strict"; I think it's good enough for here. line-break: normal | strict | loose If we need to add a third level, we can call it "lenient" or "relaxed" line-break: normal | strict | loose | relaxed ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2010 02:37:16 UTC