W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [css3-writing-modes] before/after terminology alternative? - FO and CSS names

From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:22:26 -0400
To: "\"Martin J." Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, Philippe Wittenbergh <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1349976146.6480.94.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 16:20 +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2012/10/11 16:01, Simon Sapin wrote:
> > Le 11/10/2012 08:46, Philippe Wittenbergh a écrit :
> >> 'block-before' sounds a bit strange when one wants to apply the
> >> equivalent of 'padding-top' to an inline (or inline-block) element.
> Yes, in that case it sounds a bit strange. But overall, I like Liam's 
> proposal quite a bit, in my eyes it's definitely better than 
> start/end/head/foot.

Maybe block-beforewards and and inline-afterwards would be clearer as
directions but I don't think the extra syllables help enough.

> That's the intent of Liam's proposal. Anyway, something that sounds 
> strange when you first meet is probably better than something that you 
> think you understand, but you get wrong.

That's the theory at least :-)

Thanks for replying!


Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 17:23:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:20 UTC