- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:41:23 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/27/2012 08:13 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > Hi, > > I was about to update our implementation to support overflow-wrap (and keep word-wrap as an alias). Since we have implemented > an aliasing mechanism, doing this change would be very simple, but after talking with other Opera developers, we started > questioning whether this was really a good idea. > > For sure, the name overflow-wrap is a little more descriptive, and if we were designing this without any implementation out > there, it would probably be a better choice. > > But all browsers already interoperability support this functionality under the word-wrap name, and have do so for years > already. Authors know word-wrap, tutorials talk about word-wrap, sites use word-wrap... I don't see what we gain by pulling > the carpet from under everybody's feet. > > Although we can align to the spec if the wg persists in thinking this rename is needed, we would like this decision to be > reconsidered. > > Also, even though I did find a discussion on this topic in the minutes[1], it was not conclusive, and I could not find an > actual resolution. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0325.html Here's the minutes with the resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0538.html I'll note that I don't have much of an opinion on this, and I share your concerns. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 20:41:55 UTC