- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 00:03:32 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 8:09 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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: >>> >>>> > ... >>>> >>>> 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>. > > If we do that, can we also alias 'border-radius' into 'corner-radius'? I know this confuses many people into thinking it is only for when you have visible borders, when really it's affect is just as dramatic on a filled-in background with no borders. It looks like it belongs with the other 'border-*' properties that are components of the 'border' shorthand, but it doesn't (it isn't). We've got a lot of confusing names, but I think "nowrap" is extra special here, particularly since it's in a property which is already difficult to tell whether it's one or two words. "border-radius" is less than great, but I dunno if it's worth enough to change the name. (And I don't want to get this topic derailed with slippery slope fears!) ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 12 October 2014 07:04:19 UTC