- From: Jonathan Neal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 16:50:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@tabatkins, hey, thanks so much for your earlier response. I’m still chewing on what you said, and seeing if anyone else has any further interest or insight to provide. I appreciate you pointing out that 4-value shorthands are block first. I also agree that the current t,r,b,l is really odd when you think of it in the context of block/inline (block start, inline _end_?). That _is_ a strong argument for counter-clockwise ordering. What I’m still trying to process is how inline-before-block “*breaks consensus with CSS itself*”. It seems split; 2-value shorthands are inline first while 4 value-shorthands are block first. _If_ you have the time, would you be able to tell me if there are already exceptions to this in (Candidate) CSS? Thanks again for always responding to my weird questions, and I hope I’m not bordering on asking lmgtfy questions. @bradkemper, I wasn’t suggesting anything was optimized for RTL, either. For me, it’s a matter of creating a consistent inline-first experience between 2-value and 4-value shorthands, and for preserving clockwise ordering. The counter argument is, as I understand it, to standardize on a block-first experience, at least for 4-value shorthands. Does this make sense? -- GitHub Notification of comment by jonathantneal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1500#issuecomment-307441552 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 9 June 2017 16:51:05 UTC