- 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>
> 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 UTC