- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:42:23 +0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/07/06 15:24), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I'll start by saying that I'm extremely disinclined to make any syntax > changes that aren't related to fixing an error in the spec. Mild, > arguable improvements to the usability of a name aren't worth > disturbing the syntax at this point in the spec's life. Sure. Besides making my concern clear, I have no strong opinion on this unless a Web developer supports my idea. I have found no one at the moment. > Responding to the actual proposal, I don't find it an improvement. I > don't think it's worse, it's just not better. "wrap-reverse" > parallels row/column-reverse - I think the fact that it means exactly > the same thing makes it easier to learn and remember. If we were to > change wrap in this way, I'd want to change row/column in the same > way, with optional "to start/end/head/foot" values as appropriate. That would be fine by me and it addresses my concern. I am only finding 'wrap-reverse' confusing because I interpret it as the S shape. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 12:43:05 UTC