- From: MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:23:06 +0900
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net>, www-style@w3.org
Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote on 2014/03/18 3:25:01 > MURAKAMI-san wrote: > > > BTW, the 'float' property will have same problem when 'top' and 'bottom' > > (or 'block-start' and 'block-end') values are added. > > I discussed with Håkon about this. > > His idea is 'top' = 'block-start' (aliases). See: > > http://figures.spec.whatwg.org/#floating-to-the-top-bottom:-float > > Yes, 'block-start' and 'block-end' seems like viable alternatives. If > so, do we also need 'before' and 'after' as aliases? Although the cost > of an alias is quite low, there is still a cost. I think that once the Abstract Box Terminology is defined in CSS Writing Modes, all CSS specifications have to use this terminology, so 'block-start' and 'block-end' (not 'top'/'bottom') would be the primary keywords for block axis alignment, and aliases would be defined for convenience. The 'before' and 'after' are old names of 'block-start' and 'block-end', although they are still remained in some CSS drafts, for example: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-position/#logical-box-offsets-beaso Logical box offsets: ‘offset-before’, ‘offset-end’, ‘offset-after’, ‘offset-start’, and ‘offset’ I believe these will be changed soon. We (Antenna House) support 'before' and 'after' because they are defined in XSL-FO; our implementation (Antenna House Formatter) supports both CSS and XSL stylesheet languages. We will continue supporting 'before' and 'after' for compatibility, but I don't think CSS modules should define these as aliases of 'block-start' and 'block-end'. > > One issue may be with the 'top-bottom' and 'bottom-top' keywords > (which were added in response to a use case described in [1]). If we > simply expand the keywords, we would get: > > top-bottom = block-start-block-end > bottom-top = block-end-block-start > > Which is longer, and perhaps not so intuitive. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0419.html I prefer block-start-end/block-end-start. When block/inline are obvious or duplicate they can be omitted. Also 'block-start-inline-end' (= top-right in horizontal ltr writing mode), etc. also make sense. Regards, Shinyu Murakami Antenna House
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 03:23:39 UTC