Re: [css-text][css-flexbox] Let's just alias "nowrap" with "no-wrap"

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:05:18 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> One of the people I follow recently posted the following on Twitter:
>> <https://twitter.com/SlexAxton/status/519953582183809024>
>>
>>> white-space: nowrap;
>>> whitespace: no-wrap;
>>>
>>> Don't pretend like you know. And when you look it up, don't pretend like
>>> it makes any sense.
>>
>>
>> I've heard this complaint before, and railed against the dumb keyword
>> myself.  (Flexbox originally used no-wrap for flex-wrap, but we
>> switched to nowrap for consistency with white-space.)
>>
>> This is one of the few keywords in the language that doesn't use a -
>> between words (the only others I know of being values we inherited
>> from SVG, like currentcolor).
>>
>> Anyone have objections to us just aliasing the value as "no-wrap"?
>> That way, in a few years, people can just do the logical thing and use
>> the value they expect, rather than having to deal with this wart
>> forever.
>
>
> I don't particularly like that idea. I think in general old syntax should be
> left alone. Adding aliases is not zero cost.
>
> But if this one thing is a major pain point for authors, then maybe it's
> worth it. Is it?

I forget it almost every time I use the the stupid value, and I hear
grumblings about it relatively constantly.  It's also the *very first*
mistake on <https://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/mistakes>.

~TJ

Received on Friday, 10 October 2014 15:10:01 UTC