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 15:37:53 -0700
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B506E4D1-2116-49D1-B181-F6060051F655@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On Jul 23, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> That's all real English; there's no English Authority defining which
> words are in and which are out. 

Well "The Simpsons" certainly isn't the authority. Common usage is, and this seems to be a word almost exclusive to The Simpsons. And completely unnecessary, since "expand" conveys the meaning better. It isn't getting bigger in the way that scaling makes something bigger, it is just offsetting the path outwards. 

> Embiggening is clear even to people
> who haven't heard the word before (unlike cromulent).  

I don't know if that is true for all, including all non-native English speakers. 

> Chill,
> it's a
> mildly amusing in-joke in a section title that doesn't detract or
> distract from the spec.

I'm chill enough, thank you, and disagree that it is amusing and doesn't detract or distract. 
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 22:38:22 UTC

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