https://codereview.appspot.com/33640043/diff/1/src/com/google/caja/lang/css/CssPropBit.java
File src/com/google/caja/lang/css/CssPropBit.java (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/33640043/diff/1/src/com/google/caja/lang/css/CssPropBit.java#newcode33
src/com/google/caja/lang/css/CssPropBit.java:33: // 32 is an obsolete
flag HISTORY_INSENSITIVE
On 2013/11/28 03:23:22, kpreid2 wrote:
On 2013/11/28 03:16:16, felix8a wrote:
> I have no idea how future developers should treat 32 and 256. All of
the
> options you describe sound plausible, and I think it's best to defer
> judgement to whoever it is that wants to add a flag in the future. I
guess
> I can add a comment saying, "No idea what you should do if you want
to
> add a flag", but that seems pointless?
Given that, I propose changing "is an obsolete flag" to "used to be a
flag".
This more clearly (to me) indicates that we're merely explaining why
there's a
gap in numbering.
ok, that works for me
https://codereview.appspot.com/33640043/
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Caja Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
