- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:01:07 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/16/2012 07:47 AM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > ± From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] > ± Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:03 PM > ± > ±> > ±> before > ±> start + end > ±> after > ± > ± The before/after pair isn't used in many places (just a few, > ± like caption-side), because so far it hasn't been necessary > ± (since only horizontal writing modes existed) and because a > ± number of places that need logical directions actually need > ± the over/under pair instead. > ± > ± But note that if we ever wind up with logical properties, > ± before/after will be nearly everywhere top/bottom is now. E.g. > ± margin-before/margin-after, etc. > ± > ± ~fantasai > > BTW, just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, even though I have proposed using before/after for flex-align, I would prefer to keep start/end in both directions of grid-align. Unless we manage to come up with generic align properties, there is nothing to gain by having a different value in one out of six properties of flexbox and grid. IMO both sets should match the terminology in writing modes; flexbox interpreting "flow-relative" relative to the flex-flow (which is what Tab had proposed IIRC), and grid interpreting "flow-relative" relative to the text flow. And of course if anyone has a better set of terms to use for the before/after pair, speak up now or forever hold your peace... :) ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:05:11 UTC