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

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

From: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:48:26 +1000
Message-Id: <QGRUAM.HSES4CUU8INM@abbra.com>
To: "Leif Arne Storset" <lstorset@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Hi,

--Original Message--:
><snip/>
>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?

There are plenty of commercial tools using XSL-FO and producing reams
of document conversions in professional publishing scenarios. So although
it isn't visible on the web, the technology is well entrenched, just not on
your phone...

It is entirely likely that those tools will wish to retain compatibility with CSS3
writing modes for many reasons.

>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.

Head/Foot as explained by the Japanese readers doesn't adequately
address vertical layout in Japanese text where it's still the top/bottom
of the page.

before/after clash with ::before/::after which is unfortunate. But aliasing
just creates further mess where the same names have different meaning
depending on context.

I just went to the paint shop and the guy there suggested 'pre/post' as
suitable terms for aliasing. pre -> before; post -> after kind of like in postscript.;-)

Cheers,
Alex

>> 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  
>http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#logical-directions
>
>-- 
>Leif Arne Storset
>Layout Developer, Opera Software
>Oslo, Norway
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 11:49:43 GMT

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