Re: [css-ui] Updated WD of CSS-UI L3

Florian wrote:
> Thank you again for your comments. The CSSWG has discussed
> the remaining issues, and we have accepted some of your
> suggestions and not others. Please see the minutes, and
> reply to this message with more details if this is not
> acceptable. If it is acceptable, explicit OK would
> be appreciated.
>
> Minutes: http://www.w3.org/blog/CSS/2015/06/11/minutes-telecon-249/
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jun/0110.html

>>>>> I'm familiar w/ ellipsized, I don't think there's any particular
>>>>> reason to use "ellipsed" instead (the "dictionaries" for "ellipsed"
>>>>> just say past tense of ellipse which makes no sense).
>>
>> The issue is recorded, I'll get the opinion of the broader CSSWG
>> which includes native english speakers (I am not one).

I'll note that the minutes for this section are hard to follow. I
spoke w/ TabAtkins on #css and he indicated that he had used
ellipsized for this purpose.

> The CSSWG has deferred to the editors on this topic, and the Editors
> have decided to reject the suggestion. We believe the word we have
> chosen, although not a common word, is adequate for the meaning we
> are giving it.

I know that "ellipsed" appears in Google hits, but at least some of
them are for things that actually relate to elliptical objects (wings,
tree rings). For a sampling in the computer science domain:
"ellipsized" (computer or javascript or c++)
"ellipsed" (computer or javascript or c++)

yields closer to my expectations (>2:1 in favor of the former).

but, I'm not going to write a thesis on this word :)

>>> `outline-color`. I'd request that you add a sentence to
>>> `outline-color` noting that its value may be ignored if
>>> `outline-style` is `auto`...

> The CSSWG has deferred to the editors on this topic, and the editors
> have decided to reject the suggestion. We do not believe that repetition
> would improve the readability of the specification.

ok

> We believe that it is out of scope for a W3C specification to comment on the
> possible reactions of third parties to specification violations.

ok

thanks for your consideration

Received on Monday, 29 June 2015 21:48:33 UTC