W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2015

Re: [CSSWG][css-shapes] CSS Shapes Level 1 Candidate Recommendation

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:24:05 -0700
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <21BA667E-C2C5-4BAF-89B4-BAD59DDC1FB8@gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>


> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:18 UTC