- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:48:24 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > Private reply since that's my only option at the moment apparently. > > 1 - Your change of the meaning of "closest-side" makes it so different that I don't think that term reasonably applies at all anymore. I wasn't being sarcastic or insulting in my prior mail. I was seriously trying to understand what you were trying to remap it to and I don't think your remapping reasonably aligns with "closest-side". We should leave closest-side as it is, with its current meaning for CSS3. > 2 - If we want to add something like "closest-opposing-side" (or whatever we call it) in a future draft such as CSS4, that can be easily done and would not introduce incompatibilities with the "closest-side" as it is in the current WD. [And I would likely even agree such new keywords/phrasing are useful and valuable for CSS4.] > > Tab's not saying it exactly the same way I am, but I think his thinking and conclusions are along similar lines. > > Tab - Please correct where I'm going wrong here. Agreed completely with both points. I understand where Brad's coming from, but I still think that the current spec definition is the most natural definition for the keyword's name. I think we should look into adding more implicit-sizing keywords in the level 4 draft. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 17:49:10 UTC