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

Twice now I've accidentally sent this just to Tab, so I'm just forwarding
it 0_o

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: bkardell@gmail.com
Date: Oct 13, 2014 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [css-text][css-flexbox] Let's just alias "nowrap" with
"no-wrap"
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc:

>
> On Oct 9, 2014 11:24 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > On Oct 9, 2014 10:09 PM, "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.
> > >
> > > Not only do I not have an objection, I <3 it.  The only one question
is
> > > which will cssom, etc report?
> >
> > We can just keep them as separate values that happen to mean the same
thing.
> >
> > ~TJ
>
> That's not bad I guess, but it means if you're scripting something you'd
have to check both values.  On that end it seems inconvenient.  Anything to
be done to improve that?