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

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote:

>
>
> [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?
>

The before/after vs start/end distinction is already in deployed use in W3C
technologies. IMO, here is no need to make a gratuitous change. It will
simply create a difference when there is none now, and no difference is
needed. Thus, I support fantasai's proposed value names.