On Friday 2015-05-01 15:36 -0700, Bruno Racineux wrote:
> Unless 'origin' has some kind of future application relative to
> 'same-origin-policy' for which it should be reserved for. I don't see an
> issue using that keyword for CSS since it matches the spec terminology.
Spec terminology generally isn't chosen to be easily understood.
When we expose a concept in APIs, we should try to choose the terms
carefully. If those disagree with current spec terms for it, we can
go back and change the spec terms to match. (In cases where spec
terms are widely known outside the specification community, they
should probably carry more weight, though.)
Two other more specific thoughts on the naming, although I'm not
especially happy about either:
1. In some ways this is similar enough to 'unset' that it could be
named as a variant of 'unset', such as 'unset-in-level' or
'unset-in-origin' or 'unset-here'. However, I don't like any of
the things I suggest after the 'unset-' in that list.
2. Another possibility might be 'fall-back' or similar. (The spec
uses "rolls back" to explain what it does.)
-David
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
Received on Monday, 4 May 2015 18:16:23 UTC