- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:25:40 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. It's a perfectly cromulent word, from the well-known aphorism "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man". ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 04:26:27 UTC