- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:29:17 -0800
- To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Rossen Atanassov <ratan@microsoft.com>, "Elika J. Etemad" <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 3:48 AM, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote: > > Given the ongoing state of turmoil, I'm inclined to take this advice (in a reversal of what I was about to do based on Tab's message). I propose that we'll implement > > float: inline-start | inline-end > > for now, recognizing that we might end up needing to support these as (deprecated) aliases of plain 'start' and 'end' if that's how the spec eventually settles. > > (Or would people be more comfortable with > > float: -moz-inline-start | -moz-inline-end > > at this time? That seems most consistent with https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes#working-draft-features, afaics. But it's not clear to me that it would actually be helpful here.) It might. I think it would be safer, in case we end up using those values for some reason, but with a very different effect (such as not vertically stacking and then wrapping in the absence of some other additional property and/or value).
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 17:29:46 UTC