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

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

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:40:11 +0900
Message-ID: <5073807B.8020102@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "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>
Hello Koji, others,

On 2012/10/08 22:46, Koji Ishii wrote:
> # I guess I sent from wrong mail-address, so re-sending:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> As a committer on the Apache FOP project, an implementation of XSL-FO,
>> which is implementing new features proposed for a future XSL-FO 2.0, I
>> would definitely take issue with the above statement. XSL-FO is not finished.
>> It is in very active use, and new features are being implemented and
>> proposed all the time. When and if those make it into a new W3C
>> revision of XSL-FO is another story, and besides the point.
>
> Thank you for the info, I understand that better now. But since discussion here is about W3C's statement about compatibility, someone taking over the spec doesn't seem to make a big difference, does it?

I'm not sure what you meant with the above sentence. In case you wanted 
to say "because it's now outside of W3C, W3C doesn't need to care 
anymore", I would have to disagree quite clearly.

> Still, either way, I don't think this "compatibility" part is related with international, and is purely an issue for CSS WG to resolve.

As I have tried to explain in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-cjk/2012JulSep/0060.html, it 
is better for internationalization to have the same functionality with 
the same name across related technologies than to have different 
functionality with the same name or the same functionality with a 
different name,...

To be more explicit, from an internationalization viewpoint it is a 
failure if features that everybody uses frequently (e.g. "color") have 
the same name across technologies, but features that are only used 
in/with certain cultures/languages/scripts have different names across 
technologies. It penalizes the culture/language/script-dependent 
features, which can't be good for internationalization.

Regards,   Martin.

>>> 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.
>>
>> It is better you ask the I18N WG for a response than put words in their mouth.
>
> I'm a member of I18N WG, so I need to understand the issue to discuss there. Your words certainly helped me to understand the issue better, I appreciate.
>
> Also, all I18N WG members are already in CC, so they're reading your words directly.
>
> Note that the above opinion is my personal one, not from I18N WG, just in case.
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 01:40:46 GMT

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