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

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:42:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cNZKytHFt7P1zQSY=q1xMP1yWqjeSSs8X6QxEpeJZe6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>wrote:

> 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<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?

This isn't really relevant to the long lived agreement mentioned by Martin.
In any case, yes, Antenna House and FOP (Apache) are both moving ahead with
new CSS3 and XSL-FO 2.0 features.

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

Again, this isn't particularly relevant to the point of contention about
interoperability. In any case, TTML is seeing new interest in both the US
and Europe, especially after the FCC has recently blessed TTML as a safe
harbor format. BTW, TTML is being actively developed, with both a 1.0
Second Edition and a new 1.1 being underway.

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.

There is also the possibility of avoiding the conflict or aliasing issue
entirely by simply using the existing keywords instead of introducing new
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 11:43:06 UTC

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