W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

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

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 05:32:22 -0400
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0DA231A25F@MAILR001.mail.lan>
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>> i'd like to hear what the I18N WG concludes on this matter before commenting further
>
> I would suggest the CSS WG formally request review of the terminology promulgated
> in [1] by the I18N Core WG for the purpose of determining adherence to BCP and other
> I18N guidelines.
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#abstract-box


I18N WG ran out of time last week, and this week we didn't have a call. The item is on agenda, hopefully we can discuss next week.

In the meantime, it'd be appreciated if you could clarify what compatibility you're talking about.

If I understand the discussion correctly, there are two opinions against the change:

1. "head/foot" is no better than "before/after"
2. The compatibility with XSL-FO.

I18N WG can discuss #1 in terms of i18n perspective, but #2 is out of scope of I18N WG in my understanding. Am I correct on this?

Also, I'm not clear on what "compatibility" we're talking about. In my understanding, CSS and XSL-FO are not file-compatible, nor property-name-compatible, are they? So we're talking about just whether to use the same terminologies or not.

Could you or someone please confirm if these understanding are correct?


Regards,
Koji

Received on Sunday, 7 October 2012 09:32:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT