Re: [css3-writing-modes] before/after terminology alternative?

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

> > My position is as follows:
> > • before/after is already used in standard usage in the W3C for the
> >   precise same semantics as are being discussed here, and this has
> >   been the case for at least 10 years
> > • i am not aware of any complaints regarding understanding this usage
> >   for these many years
> > • the claim that before/after is difficult to understand is nothing but
> >   speculation
> > • changing before/after to head/foot in the CSS context introduces a
> >    definite level of new confusion by assigning new names to existing
> >   understood names
> > • XSL-FO and TTML, both of which make use of CSS for keywords and
> >   semantics, will either require modification or exist in a variant form
> if
> >   one set of names (before/after) is used with XSL-FO and TTML and
> >   another set is used with CSS
> > My conclusion is that compatibility should take precedence over the
> > speculation that somehow these new keywords are easier to understand
> > than the existing keywords.
>
> Saying "hard to understand" is subjective, so not everyone may agree. If
> you change "speculation" to "subjective," it's more understandable.


ok, s/speculation/subjective opinion/

i'd like to hear what the I18N WG concludes on this matter before
commenting further