- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:24:05 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 10:01 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > >> On 7/20/15, 9:50 PM, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> ¡°Embiggening¡± is a word that is hard to take seriously. How about >> ¡°Expanding¡±? > > If I absolutely had to change the section title, I¡¯d probably use > ¡°Expanding.¡± > > But I¡¯m perversely reluctant, because I like the word. It¡¯s just one part > of the section title, which (to my knowledge) isn¡¯t normative text. We > have a tradition of levity in CSS section titles (see the 2.x Appendices). > And if there¡¯s even a tiny chance of this spec providing a citation for > the word¡¯s future dictionary inclusion, I want to help stack those odds. Really? Because I think that if there is even a tiny chance that this spec would add legitimacy to such a silly and unnecessary word, then we should leave it out. No offense, just a very different opinion.
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2015 15:24:35 UTC