- 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>
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. https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds-4/#the-background-position https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/raw-file/5bce7fe3a109/css-backgrounds-4/Overview.html#the-background-position vs. https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/raw-file/e7268601313e/css-backgrounds-4/Overview.html#the-background-position ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 20:15:34 UTC