- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 18:49:14 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "dglazkov@google.com" <dglazkov@google.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: > I don't really care about the exact syntax; the combinator vs. pseudo debate is a recurring one though. The main reason people prefer a name sounds largely cosmetic to me i.e. that combinators are so cryptic-looking, while Tab's usability argument is also reasonable. So I'll ask the dumb question: any reason we couldn't use mnemonics or even words for future combinators? We'd presumably still need to agree on a single character prefix to disambiguate these names from element names but what are the cons? > > Still doesn't answer the overall encapsulation issue but here is to moar bikeshed. Mind taking this to another thread? This is an interesting avenue to run down, and I don't want it lost in the larger conversation here. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 02:50:01 UTC