Re: [css3-flexbox][css3-align] start/end vs. before/after

start and end should be avoided when referring to writing mode relative
edges in the row axis; that is, before/after should be used for row axis
(which follows block progression) with reserved start/end for column axis
(which follows inline progression);

i'm assuming that in a vertical WM, rows progress from right to left or
left to right, while columns progress from top to bottom; if this
assumption is not correct, then I would need to alter my position;

my position is based on the terminology used in XSL-FO; of course, CSS may
decide to be different, but such a difference may result in unnecessary
confusion

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Chris Jones <cjon@microsoft.com> wrote:

> As stated, the issue [1] implies an update of some of the Grid layout
> module's alignment property. However, we disagree that column alignment and
> row alignment in Grid (or inline and stacking alignment in Flexbox) are
> different enough from each other to warrant different names for property
> values.
>
> We recognize that the proposed property names have their roots in the
> concepts of content alignment and justification, and that these concepts
> have different histories, and in some cases, different use cases. It
> doesn't make sense to talk about justifying content on a baseline, for
> example. That said, Grid item alignment isn't analogous to content
> alignment - we don't support aligning content to a row's baseline, nor do I
> think we intend to. In fact, the range of use cases for row alignment of a
> Grid item in a Grid cell is exactly the same as for column alignment in a
> Grid cell. (Keep in mind that a Grid cell itself doesn’t have inline
> content - only the Grid item has inline content, and the Grid item, as a
> separate element, can be subject to the kind of content
> justification/alignment properties in fantasai's proposal.)
>
> That being the case, there's no need to confuse the end user with needless
> differences in syntax. For example, the unified syntax in the attached
> example is, we think, simpler and easier to understand than the split
> syntax. Three basic value names (start, end, center) are easier to remember
> than five (start, end, center, before, after), as well as figuring out
> which set of names attaches to which property.
>
> Similar arguments are applicable to Flexbox - at the root, these are
> positioning controls for items. Like Grid, inline content in Flexbox is
> actually wrapped with an anonymous box, and not floating in the Flexbox
> element itself, subject to alignment properties. That being the case, let's
> keep content alignment properties separate from the item alignment
> properties in Grid and Flexbox.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Chris
>
> [1] http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/start-end-before-after-align
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:13 PM
> To: fantasai
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox][css3-align] start/end vs. before/after
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> wrote:
> > The Box Alignment proposal uses the flow-relative terms strictly, with
> > the -justify properties using start/end and the -align properties
> > using before/after.
> >
> > Aligning the two specs would mean Flexbox needs to switch flex-align,
> > flex-item-align, and flex-line-pack to before/after. Are there any
> > reasons not to do this?
>
> No, it would be fine.  I use the terms cross-start/end consistently
> throughout the spec itself; it would be a little weird to say that
> "justify-outside:before" made it align its cross-start side against the
> cross-start side of the line, but whatever.
>
> ~TJ
>
>
>