- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:51:33 -0700
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote: >>>> People can easily distinguish them. >>> >>> Fully agree with that statement. The "::" create enough context. >> >> I don't disagree with you two. >> >> But it looks to me that saying "easy enough" to who says "it's confusing me" doesn't seem >> to solve anything, does it? >> >> Could you propose a solution then? Without any good solution and without either side >> compromising, we'll end up with voting I guess. > > A good solution popped up in my mind. > > Create a new spec, say, css-logical, and move all logical directions to the spec. Edit flexbox and writing-modes not to use any logical directions. It looks like it's editorial changes for flexbox, so it won't bring it back to WD. > > This way, both parties can discuss until satisfied, while flexbox and writing-modes can go forward on REC track. Not only both-wins, but all-four-wins. > > Does this sound reasonable? No, it seems weird to me. This is a basic terminology issue, I don't see any gain to be made from trying to centralize it in one spec, and in the meantime remove all mention of it from others. The WG made a resolution, it seems reasonable, and though some people would prefer a different name, there are no strong arguments against it. I highly suspect that if it were brought up again, we'd stick with our current resolution. It's just a bikeshedding issue, after all. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 15:52:27 UTC