- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:55:54 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Dec 6, 2011, at 5:05 PM, fantasai wrote:
> On 12/06/2011 01:08 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> .
>>
>> I did have a suggested change during our discussions, that would make me happier. I don't think I ever got a reply. So the
>> agreement is not quite as resounding as you imply (though I think that I could live with it). My comment included a preference
>> for <size><shape>in that order, which you can see below, and which Brian also seems to prefer, if anything is ordered (his
>> option F). I would have said so, if I could have made it to that telecon that day.
>
> I agree that that seems the more readable order, but since there's
> no benefit to requiring that order,
It's only more readable if people write it that way. Since the purpose of changing the syntax was to make it more readable, allowing 'circle 10px' fails that goal.
> I think it's better to leave
> it order-flexible. I'll also note that the natural order is probably
> influenced by which language you speak: '5em circle' sounds better to
> an English-speaker, whereas 'circle 5em' probably sounds better to
> someone whose native tongue is French.
The keywords are in English, not French. CSS is English-centric, and 'circle 5em' makes it less readable to English readers.
>> I go further, to say that the shape keyword is actually pretty
>> redundant when lengths are given for size.
>
> True. But it's optional; you can leave it out if you prefer.
I guess I'm OK with that, when the shape is an optional clarifier of what the measurement refers to ('5em circle' sounds more like a circle that is 5em in diameter, whereas '5em' without the keyword is just a random length).
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 17:56:32 UTC