- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:18:42 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 3, 2011, at 10:48 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 just think we should pick a name that fits the most useful and least surprising value definition, and not the other way around. I further think that the name does not have to explain every nuance of the value, and that 'closest-side' is adequate enough. It does not have to be 'closest-side-that-you-actually-care-about-which-doesn't-give-absurd-results'. > I think we should look > into adding more implicit-sizing keywords in the level 4 draft. I don't. It is complex enough already. That just makes it more so. I want to ditch the not-so-useful-and-redundant meaning in favor of a more useful meaning. Whatever it is called. I don't think the fact that MS and you are in a hurry, or that MS has lots of code and tests that they would need to change should be reason to go with an inferior version that could still be fixed now in the spec.
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 19:26:30 UTC