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

[css3-writing-modes] css-logical (was before/after terminology alternative?

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:44:57 -0400
To: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0DA231A3E0@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> > > 	People can easily distinguish them.
> >
> > Fully agree with that statement. The "::" create enough context.
> 
> I don't disagree with you two.
> 
> But it looks to me that saying "easy enough" to who says "it's confusing me" doesn't seem
> to solve anything, does it?
> 
> Could you propose a solution then?  Without any good solution and without either side
> compromising, we'll end up with voting I guess.

A good solution popped up in my mind.

Create a new spec, say, css-logical, and move all logical directions to the spec. Edit flexbox and writing-modes not to use any logical directions. It looks like it's editorial changes for flexbox, so it won't bring it back to WD.

This way, both parties can discuss until satisfied, while flexbox and writing-modes can go forward on REC track. Not only both-wins, but all-four-wins.

Does this sound reasonable?


Regards,
Koji

Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 13:45:27 GMT

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