- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 06:03:23 +0000
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Chris Jones <cjon@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>, Markus Mielke <mmielke@microsoft.com>
[Glenn Adams:] >>>On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>>On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >>>> 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); >>>That's not being disputed; the issue is fantasai is proposing tying >>>start/end to the "main" axis and before/after to the "secondary" axis, >>>which have no inherent relation to the writing mode. (In Flexbox, >>>they depend on flex-direction. In Grid, "main" is "inline" and >>>"secondary" is "block".) >>in that case, i support fantasai's proposal, but do not support chris' proposal to use start/end for both axes >>Could you elaborate on why? >as I said in an earlier message >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 That's nice for XSL-FO users. The vast majority of CSS users will, however, not be at all confused with any differences with XSL-FO. Any other reason?
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 06:03:58 UTC