- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 06:32:27 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> On Jul 21, 2015, at 9:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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". That is from “The Simpsons”. Is that our standard? If a cartoon uses a word, it is good enough for us? I thought the specs were supposed to be written in real English, not in made-up TV show language. Maybe we should have a lang=“tv” attribute on our HTML. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Made-up_words http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Made-up_words#Embiggen http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Made-up_words#Cromulent
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 13:32:58 UTC