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

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

From: Ishii, Koji a | Koji | EBJB <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:31:27 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <42B5352A6034154CBE9379DF4ADF1A3210900958@HKXPRD0310MB365.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > Due to my own fault, I failed to object at the time the WG made that
> > resolution. At this point, I will need to raise an FO unless it can be
> > agreed to revert that earlier decision. Which is easier? Doing an FO
> > process or reverting?
> 
> Given that you'll apparently object to Koji's suggested compromise as well, it doesn't
> matter very much.

Is he? He objects to change, and he doesn't seem to object to keep discussing to me.

The value of having logical directions in writing-modes spec isn't high. There has been a wish to have logical properties back in future, so the level 1 can contain just directions, and the level 2 may be able to cover logical properties too.

Neither FO nor reverting is workable for everyone. I can see postponing logical directions is the only workable solution.


Regards,
Koji

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 02:32:00 GMT

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