On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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.
>
Due to my own fault, I failed to object at the time the WG made that
resolution. At this point, I will need to raise an FO unless it can be
agreed to revert that earlier decision. Which is easier? Doing an FO
process or reverting?