Re: [css3-writing-modes] css-logical (was before/after terminology alternative?

On 2012/10/12 15:53, Koji Ishii wrote:
> Agreed, I meant it's 2B, should this be edited to be more clear?

Yes, I think it would be very good to have all the actual proposals in 
your list.

Regards,   Martin.

> I'm actually +1 to Liam on this one, so my personal opinion is 1B+2B+3C+4A.
>
>
> Regards,
> Koji
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 3:31 PM
> To: Koji Ishii
> Cc: Glenn Adams; Tab Atkins Jr.; Asmus Freytag; MURAKAMI Shinyu; Sylvain Galineau; liam@w3.org; koba; www-style@w3.org; fantasai; public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-writing-modes] css-logical (was before/after terminology alternative?
>
> I think you should definitely add Liam's proposals for property names (block-before, inline-after,...).
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
> On 2012/10/12 15:06, Koji Ishii wrote:
>> +1 to discuss again, although I don't think they're new information. Head/tail has some semantic problems not only in Japanese but globally because of its ambiguity as Liam pointed out, and that was already identified in my understanding.
>>
>> But it's true that more perspectives were provided at ML than we discussed at conf call. So far, opinions we see are:
>>
>> 1A. before/after are hard to understand
>> 1B. not hard to understand
>>
>> 2A. before/after needs to memorize which axis it indicates
>> 2B. head/tail doesn't better describe axis, should use other terminologies
>> if this is the motivation
>>
>> 3A. Against any changes because of backward compatibility with XSL-FO
>> and TTML
>> 3B. terminology changes are ok as long as models are compatible
>> 3C. the compatibility is lower priority than improving
>>
>> 4A. Split logical directions as it is too controversial at this point
>> and the demand is lower than other features in writing-modes
>> 4B. splitting doesn't make sense
>>
>> Did I miss any opinions?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Koji
>>
>> ----------
>> From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:10 PM
>> To: Tab Atkins Jr.
>> Cc: Koji Ishii; Asmus Freytag; MURAKAMI Shinyu; Sylvain Galineau;
>> "Martin J. Dürst"; liam@w3.org; koba; www-style@w3.org; fantasai;
>> public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [css3-writing-modes] css-logical (was before/after terminology alternative?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com>   wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Glenn Adams<glenn@skynav.com>   wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Given that you'll apparently object to Koji's suggested compromise as
>> well, it doesn't matter very much.
>>
>> I would like to remind that we have at least two new pieces of information that weren't available when the WG made its resolution:
>>
>> (1) evidence that head/tail has some semantic problems in Japanese;
>> (2) evidence of a prior expressed intent to maintain or enhance a
>> single underlying formatting model between CSS, XSL-FO, and (by
>> extension) other specs that derive from these (e.g., TTML);
>>
>> Given this new information, I would suggest we put the question back on the table at the upcoming F2F to attempt to obtain a final, acceptable resolution.

Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 10:34:55 UTC