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: Sat, 19 May 2012 12:07:43 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d965Ui=KUkLaXKE2G5Py=cp8arsD7q-Ti2xMk5tWWqsg@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 Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote:

>
> [Glenn Adams:]
>
>
> >The before/after vs start/end distinction is already in deployed use in
> W3C technologies. IMO, here is no need to make >a gratuitous change. It
> will simply create a difference when there is none now, and no difference
> is needed. Thus, I >support fantasai's proposed value names.
>
> Nobody suggests a 'gratuitous' change. Quite the contrary. What is
> proposed is that use-cases and developer expectations be considered in
> addition to 'the way it's been done around here'. We have been using the
> current grid naming model to build real applications quite successfully. As
> for differences, they would matter for those people who will be able to
> notice them due to their familiarity with all the w3c technologies where it
> is deployed. That population may well be too small in practice to cause
> significant confusion.
>

IMO, both of our positions are relatively weak. You haven't surveyed the
authoring community (which is more relevant than the developer community)
and XSL-FO usage is relatively small. In this situation, I would prefer to
go with existing practice, even if small, and also give preference to the
editor's wishes. If the editor or WG prefers start/end, then I will not
object.
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 18:08:33 GMT

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