- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:56:15 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/05/2014 03:07 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:58 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > >> # <shape-box> | fill | stroke | view-box >> >> Seems to me maybe fill and stroke should be fill-box and stroke-box? >> To be consistent that they're all part of the same set of keywords >> selecting a type of box? > > This was proposed during the F2F but rejected. The WG wanted to avoid > “box” since it does not reflect the terminology that we came up with > for boxes. Even if we have content-box, padding-box and margin-box, > it was said that we don’t want to continue using the wrong terminology > for new keywords. I don't think this reasoning is benefiting authors in this case and is prioritizing pedanticness over usability. Usability should win. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 16:56:43 UTC