W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2015

Re: [css-logical-properties] the 'inline-{start,end}' values for 'float' and 'clear'

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:14:55 -0400
To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, ratan@microsoft.com, "Elika J. Etemad" <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <56142BBF.4090007@inkedblade.net>
On 10/05/2015 10:21 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> On 5/10/15 14:25, Koji Ishii wrote:
>> I'm personally in mild preference to use 'start' and 'end' for inline
>> regardless of 1 or 2 dimensional. That's another way not to regret,
>> isn't that?
> For 2-dimensional properties, however, it may be unclear to authors
> whether 'start' and 'end' refer to the inline or block direction.
> In the case of 'text-align', which already accepts 'start' and 'end'
> values, it's pretty clear that only the inline direction is relevant.
> But I think it's much less obvious that 'float: start' would necessarily
> refer to inline-start. We don't currently have block-direction options
> for 'float', but in principle they seem like a reasonable possibility.
> If we use 'start' and 'end' now, and later extend 'float' to two
> dimensions, I could see us ending up with 'float: start | end  |
> block-start | block-end', which seems unfortunate. ISTM that using
> the inline-prefixed names from the beginning is preferable. Or would
> you suggest some entirely different names for the block-direction
> analogs of inline 'start' and 'end'?

I think this makes sense. I'll note though, that for <position>, I
ended up concluding that unprefixed keywords and requiring a particular
order was much cleaner: easier to read and author.


Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 20:15:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:57 UTC