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

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

From: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:32:44 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wk4vgukvtmo5g6@localhost.localdomain>
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:05:18 +0200, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>  
> wrote:
>> > From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
>> >> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.  
>> <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>  On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Koji Ishii  
>> <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
>> wrote:
>> >>> I think this is an issue where there won't be a single correct  
>> answer,
>> both
>> >>> "head/foot" and "before/after" makes sense in some cases and doesn't
>> in other
>> >>> cases, and therefore we can't make everyone happy.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm more concerned that this issue blocks the spec for months. Why
>> doesn't the WG make a vote and decide?
>> >>
>> >>We did.  We decided on switching to head/foot some time ago.  ^_^
>> >
>> > to which I have a standing objection
>> Thanks Tab, I searched for minutes and found one[1]. I see Glenn's "-1"
>> but everyone else is happy or can live with, and then the WG resolution
>> appears. I'm sorry to who doesn't like it, but it looks like it's
>> reasonably fair process to me.
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/1149.html
> Once again I remind the WG that there are two W3C RECs (XSL-FO and TTML)
> that use before/after

Since the XSL-FO WG is closing [1], I reckon it's only relevant if there  
are actively-developed tools that parse XSL-FO and may take in CSS3  
Writing Modes. Is this the case?

One could say the same for TTML, except that I have only the vaguest idea  
how widely used that one is.

For people just now entering the discussion, I think it's worth  
highlighting that this is not a direct naming conflict, as I thought when  
first reading this thread. XSL's and TTML's 'before' and 'after' would  
mean the same as CSS's 'head' and 'foot' [2], whereas 'start' and 'end'  
would be identical in all three specs. So while this could be potentially  
confusing, there is also the possibility of simply aliasing one pair of  
keywords to the other in new versions of XML and TTML.

> and that changing these for no reason whatsoever
> (other than the fact the the persons that wish to make a change have not
> used these two specs) is not a sufficient reason and should not be
> undertaken without further substantial reason (of which I know of none).
> I will enter an FO against the WM spec when it goes up for CR if this
> unwarranted change is not reversed.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0536.html
[2] Compare http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/#area-geo with  

Leif Arne Storset
Layout Developer, Opera Software
Oslo, Norway
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 09:33:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:04 UTC