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: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 03:34:18 -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: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0DA231A26A@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] 
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:
>> 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?
> Basically, yes. In addition to XSL-FO, TTML uses before/after in [1], and also numerous
> times in referring to the before/after edges of a generated area (box).
> Martin also pointed out in [2] a long-standing agreement to endeavor to maintain a similar
> and interoperable underlying formatting model, by which I take to include terminology about the model.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#style-attribute-displayAlign

> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Sep/0449.html

Thank you for the clarifications. It looks like there are two points in the "#2: compatibility" discussion.

Liam said he cares functionality than terminology, so whether the "compatibility" includes terminology or not is one point of discussions.

Another point I saw is, given XSL-FO is finished, it may no longer be appropriate for an evolving technology to keep compatibility with a finished technology.

Neither of them seem to be related with I18N WG, so I guess what you're asking I18N WG to discuss is about #1 ("head/foot" is no better than "before/after") from i18n perspective. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

Note that my personal opinion is the same as Florian, I'm good with either. I'm a bit more in hurry to stabilize Writing Modes given its fast spread of actual usage in Japan though.


Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 07:34:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:04 UTC