- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:13:01 +0900
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 10:30, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> There are lots of discussions here around why list-item is fine. Let's >>>> try >>>> considering the other side: why do you think adding an alias for them is >>>> not >>>> good? If aliasing makes things less confusing for future use, I think it >>>> should be fine. What would be hurt if we do that? >>> >>> "Why not" isn't a good reason to add things to a language. Additions >>> should have a strong justification behind them. Aliasing should only >>> be done when the name is *manifestly* wrong or confusing; imo, it >>> should only be done when we're *deprecating* the previous name as a >>> mistake. >> >> >> Then, could we deprecate the current names and changing them to 'display: >> marked' and 'marker-type', 'marker-position', etc? These names do seem to >> make more sense than the current ones, and make it clearer about their >> relationship with the '::marker' pseudo-element. > > We don't typically deprecate very widely-used names, unless they're a > *huge* mistake. I think the names suggested by Xidorn would have been better had we picked them initially, for the reasons explained by Xidorn and Glazou. However, I don't think deprecating the list based names at this point is realistic, so even though the current names aren't great, as far as I am concerned we're stuck with them, and I think we should move on. - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 05:13:31 UTC