- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 12:33:00 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Chris Jones <cjon@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>, Markus Mielke <mmielke@microsoft.com>
On 05/19/2012 08:21 AM, Sylvain Galineau 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. I'm not concerned if we decide to use different terminology than XSL:FO, provided it's better. My concern is that in 2D contexts (e.g. GCPM 'float' keywords, or 'caption-side' values or logical margins), authors will have to use the start/end pair in the main axis and the before/after pair in the secondary axis. For alignment only to use start/end in both axes will be inconsistent, and therefore confusing. ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 19:33:45 UTC