- From: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:14:39 +1000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 10:15:37AM -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Peter Moulder > <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:21:04PM +0200, fantasai wrote: > >> Is there a useful reason that we define the root element as out-of-flow? > > > > It might be for purposes of the immediately following phrase, "the flow of A" > > (and related phrases such as "in the same flow"). > > Yeah, it seems likely that it was done solely to make that later > sentence simpler. But I agree with fantasai that it's confusing in > general, and we should instead call it in-flow but amend the following > phrase to talk about roots as well. It might be helpful to introduce a term "flow root" for the existing definition that includes root. pjrm.
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 22:15:09 UTC