- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:26:32 -0700
- To: rune@opera.com
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Monday 2013-06-24 22:18 +0000, rune@opera.com wrote: > 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? I don't think this is necessary; "as specified" means "equivalent to the form in which the value is specified", since I don't think "as specified" is intended to hook into the "specified value" term. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 22:27:13 UTC