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.Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 07:08:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:15 UTC