W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

RE: [css3-text] alternate name for line-break: newspaper

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:32:58 -0500
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0AA8B1C052@MAILR001.mail.lan>
It looks like it's not easy to reach consensus even for native English speakers.

Should we move on to numbers as David Singer suggested?
  20: newspaper
  50: normal
  80: strict
I can live without names if that makes everyone happy.


-----Original Message-----
From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:01 PM
To: John Hudson
Cc: Koji Ishii; David Singer; Brady Duga; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-text] alternate name for line-break: newspaper

On 12/21/2010 09:52 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> fantasai wrote:
>> 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.

Um, yeah, that's what I meant. :)

> Since the idea of the least strict style is a minimal set of restrictions, how about
> line-break: normal | strict | relaxed | basic

The problem is that "basic" then becomes confusable with "normal".

Received on Sunday, 26 December 2010 13:36:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:54 UTC