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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 06:03:23 +0000
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.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>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290A3538C8@TK5EX14MBXC262.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>



[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

That's nice for XSL-FO users. The vast majority of CSS users will, however, not be at all confused with any
differences with XSL-FO. Any other reason?
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 06:03:58 GMT

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