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

RE: [css3-writing-modes] before/after terminology alternative?

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:56:53 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290A357DC3@TK5EX14MBXC262.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[L. David Baron:]
> 
> On Monday 2012-05-28 08:42 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Christoph Päper
> > <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote:
> > > fantasai (2012-05-01):
> > >> We're pretty settled on start/end for the logical inline
> > >> directions, but most people aren't that thrilled with before/after
> > >> for the logical block directions. Someone suggested head/tail as an
> alternative.
> > >
> > >  – ‘initial’ / ‘final’
> > >  – ‘begin’ / ‘stop’
> > >  – ‘head’ / ‘foot’
> > >  – ‘ceil’ / ‘floor’
> >
> > 'head' / 'foot' actually makes some sense to me, as it corresponds to
> > the directions of the header/footer in a document.  That's
> > writing-mode dependent, and easy to explain.  (Plus, it always makes
> > me strangely happy when keyword pairs are the same length.)
> 
> Are we sure 'head' / 'foot' are actually writing-mode-independent terms,
> as opposed to effectively being terms for 'top' / 'bottom'?
> 
Right; I think the assumption here is that web authors will see head/foot and
think header/footer. Fwiw I think that is a reasonable assumption and I find
the improvement over before/after to be more than significant enough to risk
a level of confusion that I think will be very minor and very temporary if/when
it happens.
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 15:59:58 GMT

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