- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:17:26 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Wednesday 2011-07-27 09:54 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > That said, an alternative here is to make wrapping control part of > this property. Continuing in that vein, I said in the meeting that I'd propose an additional option. If we *do* make wrapping control part of the direction property, I have a simpler option that I think also meets all of the requirements. This is making the value syntax simply: [ tb | bt | lr | rl | block | block-reverse | inline | inline-reverse ]{1,2} with the initial value being 'inline'. When one value is provided, or when two values are provided that resolve to parallel or antiparallel directions, the first value is used for the main axis, there is no wrapping, and the cross axis does not have an associated cross direction. When two values are provided and their directions are perpendicular to each other, the first value is the main direction and the second value is the cross (wrapping) direction. This does have the disadvantage that some of the two-value options have their second value ignored when it doesn't make sense, but it controls wrapping and both directions with just two values, and does allow mixed logical and absolute directions, which seems to be a requirement based on our discussion in the meeting. It also has the disadvantage that the way of specifying wrapping would normally be 'inline block' or 'block inline', which is a little odd-sounding. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ 𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 20:44:08 UTC