W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:22:10 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "unicode@unicode.org" <unicode@unicode.org>
Message-ID: <DD63E4C8-FC64-4A01-B57F-6C9F53BDED91@gluesoft.co.jp>
On Feb 7, 2014, at 0:02, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>>> 6.2 second paragraph (after the list of four "flow-relative  directions" -- block-end, block-start, etc.)
>>> "Where unambiguous (or dual-meaning), the terms start and end are used in place of block-start/inline-start and
>>> block-end/inline-end, respectively."
>>> 
>>> {COMMENT: "unambiguous" is the opposite of "dual-meaning" -- "dual meaning" means "ambiguous"; do you mean the following?
>>> (if so it's o.k. to eliminate the stuff in parentheses altogether):}
>> 
>> Fixed.
> 
> Similarly, this is an incorrect edit. The intent is the opposite
> of "ambiguous" in the sense of "lacking clearness or definiteness".
> If the intent is clear from context OR if the intent encompasses
> both meanings, then the ambiguous terms start/end are allowed to
> be used. I have removed the parentheses to make this clear.

After a bit more discussion with fantasai, the intent of “dual-meaning” in this context is “both directions”, but I thought it means “either. direction”

Maybe it’s better to use different wording that indicates “both directions” better?

/koji
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 08:22:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC