- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:56:53 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
[L. David Baron:] > > On Monday 2012-05-28 08:42 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Christoph Päper > > <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote: > > > fantasai (2012-05-01): > > >> We're pretty settled on start/end for the logical inline > > >> directions, but most people aren't that thrilled with before/after > > >> for the logical block directions. Someone suggested head/tail as an > alternative. > > > > > > – ‘initial’ / ‘final’ > > > – ‘begin’ / ‘stop’ > > > – ‘head’ / ‘foot’ > > > – ‘ceil’ / ‘floor’ > > > > 'head' / 'foot' actually makes some sense to me, as it corresponds to > > the directions of the header/footer in a document. That's > > writing-mode dependent, and easy to explain. (Plus, it always makes > > me strangely happy when keyword pairs are the same length.) > > Are we sure 'head' / 'foot' are actually writing-mode-independent terms, > as opposed to effectively being terms for 'top' / 'bottom'? > Right; I think the assumption here is that web authors will see head/foot and think header/footer. Fwiw I think that is a reasonable assumption and I find the improvement over before/after to be more than significant enough to risk a level of confusion that I think will be very minor and very temporary if/when it happens.
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 15:59:58 UTC