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: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:02:45 +0900
Message-ID: <506102B5.2060203@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, www-style@w3.org, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Hello Tab,

On 2012/09/25 2:37, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
> <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>  wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Note that this understanding was produced over a decade ago, during a
> time, as you say, when there were heavy clashes between the two techs.

Well, yes, but it is still part of the W3C Style Activity.

>   That time is long past; CSS clearly and decisively won on the web,
> and XSL-FO is being shuttered as a W3C technology, with us absorbing
> Liam for his expertise in printing tech (which XSL-FO was always
> somewhat better at) so we can bring CSS up to rough feature parity.
>
> XSL-FO is effectively a dead technology, one which we shouldn't worry
> about when thinking about naming.

Even if you think it is dead, it may be well worth thinking about why 
XSL-FO didn't choose head/foot. (I don't know whether it was even 
considered.)

It is very clear that head/foot is *highly suboptimal* when it comes to 
printed vertical content. Page headers are at the top of the page, and 
footers at the bottom, even for vertical text. So if you want to bring 
CSS up to the point where it can deal well with print, you should rather 
think very carefully about using these words.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 01:05:21 GMT

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