- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:22:26 -0400
- To: "\"Martin J." Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, Philippe Wittenbergh <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 16:20 +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > On 2012/10/11 16:01, Simon Sapin wrote: > > Le 11/10/2012 08:46, Philippe Wittenbergh a écrit : > >> 'block-before' sounds a bit strange when one wants to apply the > >> equivalent of 'padding-top' to an inline (or inline-block) element. > > Yes, in that case it sounds a bit strange. But overall, I like Liam's > proposal quite a bit, in my eyes it's definitely better than > start/end/head/foot. Maybe block-beforewards and and inline-afterwards would be clearer as directions but I don't think the extra syllables help enough. > That's the intent of Liam's proposal. Anyway, something that sounds > strange when you first meet is probably better than something that you > think you understand, but you get wrong. That's the theory at least :-) Thanks for replying! Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 17:23:47 UTC