- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:41:07 +0200
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: derhoermi@gmx.net, jackalmage@gmail.com, www-style@w3.org
> You mean it just doesn't feel right? Well, yes. > > and having a longer name isn't always bad as long as it is more > descriptive as a short one. > > Sure. But you have to admit, 'overflow-attachment-y' is pretty darn > long. Sure, it's not the shortest name. And I am open for other suggestions. > I don't think it is really describing it that well. 'overflow- > anchor[-x | -y]' would be better Sounds ok to me. > > My proposal would also have the benefit that you could combine the > > value in the 'overflow' property and use it as shorthand property. > > E.g. like this: > > > > overflow: scroll normal bottom; > > Sure. You could still do that with my naming variation, since I am not > touching the values. I think your better argument is to have a > 'overflow-attachment' shorthand property that combined x and y, like > this: > > overflow-attachment: <overflow-attachment-x> <overflow-attachment-y> > > Which could then be shorthanded into 'overflow' as you suggested: > > overflow: <overflow-attachment> Yes, that's one benefit of my proposal. > So, my version would be like this: > > scroll-anchor: <scroll-left> <scroll-right> > overflow: <scroll-anchor> Normally longhand property names are having the shorthand property name as prefix. Having 'scroll-anchor' people probably wouldn't know that they can put it into 'overflow'. > > > And it could be writing mode dependent, if we also had those > > > keywords (er, begin/stop and head/foot? > > Yes, I didn't consider this before. What about begin/end for both > properties? What are other properties using here? > > I think flex-box is doing that (start/end for both vertical and > horizontal), but only because, uh, well, I a, not the best one to > explain that. I think because it needs to have a vertical and > horizontal that are more divorced from writing mode. Or something. > Sorry I haven't been following that quite as closely. I don't believe people would mix up the writing mode with flexbox. But that's not the topic of this issue. > > > Or whatever it is this week?). > > Of course it should be something consistent with other properties' > values. > > Agreed. I'm being a bit snarky because start/end are apparently well > established for bidirectional writing, but still hard for me to > remember, because the opposite of "start" should be "stop" or "finish", > and the opposite of "end" should be "begin" (you even paired begin/end): > > ~ One can start smoking and stop smoking, but it is quite a different > thing to end smoking. > > ~ One can start running in a race when the starting gun is fired, and > stop running when they reach the finishing line, but the race doesn't > end until everyone is done or some time limit is reached. > > ~ books, articles, movies, and songs all have beginnings and endings. > You can start or stop reading, watching, or listening at any point, but > the piece generally begins at the beginning and ends at the ending (you > can personally start reading, watching, or listening at the beginning, > and stop reading, watching, or listening at the end, or you could just > start and stop reading, watching, or listening to a middle part). Ok, thanks for the good examples. They really clarify this. So it sounds I wasn't that wrong with begin/end even when I'm not a native English speaker. :-) > Anyway, if you only wanted two directions, it would be start/end, > because those keyword are established for bidi. But I think you'd not > get away with that. You need all 4 logical directions to be consistent > with most other things that (will) have four logical directions. The > other two are under discussion to change from before/after to > head/foot. As I said as long as it complies with other directional property values I think it's fine. > > The alternative (when staying with left/right and top/bottom) would be > to use the :dir() pseudo-class [1]. So somebody would have to write > this to cover different writing modes: > > I don't like that. It seems clumsy and awkward to me. I agree. I just mentioned it to point out an alternative. Sebastian -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 22:41:36 UTC