W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

Re: [CSS3] Box Model Terminology

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:51:42 -0800
Message-ID: <47C5F78E.9030404@inkedblade.net>
To: Andrei Polushin <polushin@gmail.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Andrei Polushin wrote:
> Yes, and that *is* the problem when you start defining another layout 
> algorithm with those terms.

These terms are *supposed* to be specific to this layout algorithm.

> And there is the 3rd direction to flow layout, how would you call it? 
> Z-axis? Or overlay-direction?

It's called stacking order.

>  > and they're vectors not sizes.
> OK, I didn't catch the English meaning for the first time. Then might be 
> "width growing direction"? Or "logical X direction"? Or "logical right 
> direction" (my favorite)?


>  >> I would suggest reusing the terms
>  >> from both worlds instead of introducing unusual terminology:
>  >>
>  >>    top          logical-top         japanese-left
>  >>    left         logical-left        japanese-bottom
>  >>    right        logical-right       japanese-top
>  >>    bottom       logical-bottom      japanese-right
>  >
>  > That would make left == right in RTL languages, something we want to 
> avoid.
> You mean logical-left == physical-right in RTL languages, I guess.


> I use the left-handed computer mouse, buttons logically switched. When I 
> press the right mouse button, each program receives the "left button 
> click" event. So right is left, and left is right, am I right? It works 
> just fine, really.

Because semantically it's "primary mouse button" and "secondary mouse button",
and that's how you think about it. Most UI you encounter doesn't refer to
your mouse buttons by label, their usage is implied.

> Why do you want to avoid this?

Because I expect I'll have to read/write several hundred pages worth of
geometric description using these terms and it's confusing enough without
making non-matching direction terms almost exactly the same.

>  > Also, the 'start/end' terms are already being used; we can't change 
> those.
> Did you mean XSL-FO? Or is there CSS *Recommendation* using them? Is 
> there any browser that implements them? Are there any web authors aware 
> of that? Are there any web authors that would prefer using them?
> I suspect you *can* make a change, there is no real compatibility issue.

text-align: start; is already implemented.

>  >> In this case, logical-top and japanese-left are full synonyms and can
>  >> be used interchangeably throughout the specifications.
>  >
>  > Absolutely not. First of all, the direction mapping used for Japanese is
>  > also used in traditional Chinese,
> Mostly irrelevant, let it be "east-asian-left". Assuming logical-top is 
> OK in Europe, just ask Asians how would they like to call it, instead of 
> inventing the third term.
> So what? Each time one would use his own set of terms, most convenient
> for his own culture, and the mapping is as follows:
>  European          Arabic, Hebrew   Chinese, Japanese   Mongolian
>  ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- ----------------
>  logical-left      semitic-right    east-asian-bottom   mongolian-bottom
>  logical-right     semitic-left     east-asian-top      mongolian-top
>  logical-top       semitic-top      east-asian-left     mongolian-right
>  logical-bottom    semitic-bottom   east-asian-right    mongolian-left

This is completely useless. The goal is to have a set of terms that are
independent of the writing mode, not additional terms that are dependent
on it.

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 23:51:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:34 UTC