- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:52:16 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>, www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote: > 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". > "Loose" can be used in the sense of "not strict"; I think it's > good enough for here. I have the same connotative problem with 'line-break: loose' as you have with 'line-break: minimal'. It suggests something different to me. > If we need to add a third level, we can call it "lenient" or "relaxed" > line-break: normal | strict | loose | relaxed I would switch those around (with the final three in order from strictest to least strict): line-break: normal | strict | relaxed | loose It's like shopping for jeans: relaxed fit comes before loose fit. Since the idea of the least strict style is a minimal set of restrictions, how about line-break: normal | strict | relaxed | basic JH
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2010 02:52:50 UTC