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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 06:32:27 -0700
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A7E0C646-314F-4141-9606-C085A1E0A0E5@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> 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.



Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 13:32:58 UTC

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