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

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

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:05:57 +0900
Message-ID: <50601465.1030802@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>
CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, www-style@w3.org, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
I agree with Tokushige, Glenn, and Addison.

As an additional argument, based on my long work in 
internationalization, I have always felt that while it may not be 
hopelessly bad to have gratuitous differences for features of specs that 
are widely used. But having such differences in features that are used 
only rarely, in particular in internationalization, is really, really bad.

Also, I would like to point everybody to http://www.w3.org/Style/, which 
among other things says:

"CSS and XSL use the same underlying formatting model and designers 
therefore have access to the same formatting features in both languages. 
W3C will work hard to ensure that interoperable implementations of the 
formatting model are available."

This is part of a common understanding that was gained at a time when 
there were heavy clashes between the proponents of the two technologies. 
For some background, please also see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/1999Jun/0040.html.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2012/09/24 10:56, koba wrote:
>> Saying "hard to understand" is subjective, so not everyone may agree. If you change "speculation" to "subjective," it's more understandable. But when a good number of people say "hard to understand for me," even if it's subjective and even if it's not hard to understand for you, shouldn't we take them into account?
>
> When I first read XSL-FO spec, it was difficult to undertand
> before/after for me too. But the difficulty was caused by
> the concept of logical direction but not by terminology.
>
> You had better to analyse why people says "hard to understand".
> IMO, a change of terminology will not make the issue easy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tokushige Kobayashi
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 08:06:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT