On May 19, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > > [Glenn Adams:] > > > >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. > > Nobody suggests a 'gratuitous' change. Quite the contrary. What is proposed is that use-cases and developer expectations be considered in addition to 'the way it's been done around here'. We have been using the current grid naming model to build real applications quite successfully. As for differences, they would matter for those people who will be able to notice them due to their familiarity with all the w3c technologies where it is deployed. That population may well be too small in practice to cause significant confusion. > > IMO, both of our positions are relatively weak. You haven't surveyed the authoring community (which is more relevant than the developer community) and XSL-FO usage is relatively small. In this situation, I would prefer to go with existing practice, even if small, and also give preference to the editor's wishes. If the editor or WG prefers start/end, then I will not object. I am a designer-author. And developer, at times. Like Fremy, the notions of 'before' and 'after' describing directions or sides does not come easy. I usually have to stop and think for several seconds each time, to know that it means 'top' and 'bottom' to me most of the time. But it could just as easily refer to something coming before or after in the inline direction. The un-obviousness can slow me down when authoring, and can lead to mistakes. But it is a general problem, not just with alignment.
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 23:53:38 UTC