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

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:27:32 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fgzCvZJTOLT9qFs3fAkZyCsk0MMgJeyiThvMLMMVhcRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "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>
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi Martin, thank you for the reply.
>
> > > 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.
>
> I didn't go that far, but CSS WG to make a forever commitment for
> compatibility with external body sounds like a bit over-commit to me, isn't
> it?
>

What "external body" are you referring to?
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 07:28:24 GMT

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