- From: <rune@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:18:39 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Quoting "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>: > I'm asking why we need a publicly exposed term for what "specified > value" used to mean. In other words, it seems to be a concept that > might be useful inside the cascade module but is unlikely to be > useful outside of it. In turn, that makes me think we'd be better > off not giving it a nice easy-to-refer-to term that people are > likely to refer to. > > In other words, I'm proposing not replacing the term "specified > value" with anything that's easy to refer to, and leaving the term > "cascaded value" as it is. You have computed values in terms of specified value in property definitions: "Computed value: as specified" With Tab's suggested change to "cascaded value" you can say: "Computed value: as cascaded" Otherwise you would still need the another equivalent to the 'specified value' term, right? -- Rune Lillesveen
Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 22:19:19 UTC