- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:14:48 +0900
- To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Cc: "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 5/11/15 23:37, Florian Rivoal wrote: >> If you can't [wait] "inline-start" seems >> more future proof to me: if we end up deciding "start" is meaningful for page >> floats, inline-start becomes merely redundant, but the other way around isn't true. > > 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.) This wiki was an proposed policy for how to deal with prefixes, but is not what the CSSWG ultimately adopted. It is interesting for historical purposes, but don't follow its advice (I'll update to make this clear). This is what the CSSWG (recently) decided on: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#future-proofing TL;DR: as this is unstable stuff, if you're going to ship it, you should (RFC 2119) ship with both inline-start and -moz-inline-start, aliased to each other (and the same thing for *-end). If you're not happy about aliasing the more important of the two is the non-prefixed one. - Florian
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2015 04:15:27 UTC