W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > September 2017

[csswg-drafts] [css-align] Use of word 'justify'

From: r12a via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 14:49:33 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-256278236-1504882163-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
r12a has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-align] Use of word 'justify' ==
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align/

The spec has properties with names like `justify-content`, `justify-self` and `justify-items`.

A much more appropriate alternative, imho, would be `arrange-content/self/items` (borrowing from Powerpoint's UI).  (If we wanted to go further we could  swap `arrange-content` and `align-content` (etc) so that `align` refers to inline direction, and `arrange` to line-stacking direction, because that works better with the current `text-align` concept.)

This worries me because content authors already have difficulties understanding the difference between text-align: justify and the text-justify property, and now we seem to be introducing another sense for 'justify', for something which i actually think is alignment rather than justification. For me (and for Bringhurst) justification is to do with _setting text flush left and right_ on a line. (Note the words 'text', and 'flush'. Some of the justify- options in css-align don't produce flush alignments.)

Other possibilities might be `line-align` vs. `stack-align`, etc.. But i don't think `justify` is appropriate or helpful here.

The i18n WG endorses this comment.


Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1789 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 8 September 2017 14:49:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:17 UTC