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

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> i'd like to hear what the I18N WG concludes on this matter before
> commenting further
> >
> > I would suggest the CSS WG formally request review of the terminology
> promulgated
> > in [1] by the I18N Core WG for the purpose of determining adherence to
> BCP and other
> > I18N guidelines.
> >
> > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#abstract-box
>
> I18N WG ran out of time last week, and this week we didn't have a call.
> The item is on agenda, hopefully we can discuss next week.
>
> In the meantime, it'd be appreciated if you could clarify what
> compatibility you're talking about.
>
> If I understand the discussion correctly, there are two opinions against
> the change:
>
> 1. "head/foot" is no better than "before/after"
> 2. The compatibility with XSL-FO.
>
> I18N WG can discuss #1 in terms of i18n perspective, but #2 is out of
> scope of I18N WG in my understanding. Am I correct on this?
>
> Also, I'm not clear on what "compatibility" we're talking about. In my
> understanding, CSS and XSL-FO are not file-compatible, nor
> property-name-compatible, are they? So we're talking about just whether to
> use the same terminologies or not.
>
> Could you or someone please confirm if these understanding are correct?
>

Basically, yes. In addition to XSL-FO, TTML uses before/after in [1], and
also numerous times in referring to the before/after edges of a generated
area (box).

Martin also pointed out in [2] a long-standing agreement to endeavor to
maintain a similar and interoperable underlying formatting model, by which
I take to include terminology about the model.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#style-attribute-displayAlign
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Sep/0449.html