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

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

From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:10:10 -0700
Message-ID: <5073A3A2.3000708@ix.netcom.com>
To: MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On 10/8/2012 7:43 PM, MURAKAMI Shinyu wrote:
> Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote on 2012/10/05 4:19:57
>> ["Martin J. Dürst":]
>>> Just an additional datapoint in this discussion:
>>>
>>> I just noticed that CSS already has properties page-break-before and page-
>>> break-after (see http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/page.html#page-break-props).
>>> Rather obviously, these indicate the same directions as the -before and -
>>> after relative direction properties already in XSL-FO, but are orthogonal
>>> to the :before and :after pseudo-elements.
>>>
>>> These seem not to have caused any significant confusion up to now.
>> That it does not seem to have caused confusion may mostly reflect that one
>> is much better known than the other.
>>
>> Also, when preceded and qualified with the word 'page' I don't see how they
>> could be confusing. As stand-alone directional words before and after are
>> imo potentially confusing for anyone familiar with ::before/::after which is
>> to say a very large proportion of CSS authors.
>
> I'd like to repeat this[1] -
> 	I don't think the logical direction before/after conflicts
> 	with existing CSS specification, the pseudo elements ::before and ::after.
> 	The pseudo elements ::before and ::after are for
> 	"before the element's content" and "after the element's content"
> 	in the DOM tree, and do not mean directions in layout.
> 	People can easily distinguish them.

Fully agree with that statement. The "::" create enough context.

A./
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Sep/0385.html
>
> In addition, I understand that if the actual directions of ::before/::after
> pseudo elements are always orthogonal to the before/after logical
> directions, people will be confused easily, but this is not true;
> when the ::before/::after pseudo elements have 'display: block' or
> the target elements have block content, the directions are same as
> before/after logical directions. Consider the following example:
>
> 	<style>
> 	h1::before {
> 	  display: block;
> 	  content: "[BEFORE]";
> 	}
> 	h1::after {
> 	  display: block;
> 	  content: "[AFTER]";
> 	}
> 	</style>
> 	<h1>TEST</h1>
>
> The result will be:
>
> 	[BEFORE]
> 	TEST
> 	[AFTER]
>
> Regards,
>
> Shinyu Murakami
> Antenna House
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 04:11:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT