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

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

> > From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
> wrote:
> >> 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
>
> Thank you for the clarifications. It looks like there are two points in
> the "#2: compatibility" discussion.
>
> Liam said he cares functionality than terminology, so whether the
> "compatibility" includes terminology or not is one point of discussions.
>
> Another point I saw is, given XSL-FO is finished, it may no longer be
> appropriate for an evolving technology to keep compatibility with a
> finished technology.
>

As a committer on the Apache FOP project, an implementation of XSL-FO,
which is implementing new features proposed for a future XSL-FO 2.0, I
would definitely take issue with the above statement. XSL-FO is not
finished. It is in very active use, and new features are being implemented
and proposed all the time. When and if those make it into a new W3C
revision of XSL-FO is another story, and besides the point.


>
> Neither of them seem to be related with I18N WG, so I guess what you're
> asking I18N WG to discuss is about #1 ("head/foot" is no better than
> "before/after") from i18n perspective. Please correct me if I misunderstand.
>

It is better you ask the I18N WG for a response than put words in their
mouth.