W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox][css3-align] start/end vs. before/after

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 22:13:26 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+efNqYMiiANJYwCfmJjtNHycL6eA+AkGxwJi-98t5ZpQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Chris Jones <cjon@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>, Markus Mielke <mmielke@microsoft.com>
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote:

>
>
> [Glenn Adams:]
>
> >On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >> start and end should be avoided when referring to writing mode relative
> >> edges in the row axis; that is, before/after should be used for row axis
> >> (which follows block progression) with reserved start/end for column
> axis
> >> (which follows inline progression);
>
> >That's not being disputed; the issue is fantasai is proposing tying
> >start/end to the "main" axis and before/after to the "secondary" axis,
> >which have no inherent relation to the writing mode.  (In Flexbox,
> >they depend on flex-direction.  In Grid, "main" is "inline" and
> >"secondary" is "block".)
>
> >in that case, i support fantasai's proposal, but do not support chris'
> proposal to use start/end for both axes
>
> Could you elaborate on why?
>

as I said in an earlier message

my position is based on the terminology used in XSL-FO; of course, CSS may
> decide to be different, but such a difference may result in unnecessary
> confusion
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 04:14:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:54 GMT