In my view, a specification does not need to provide extra capability to 
be considered a better choice.  I feel that the specifications I have 
brought up are able to meet the requirements of CSS Text Layout, are 
cleaner and more accessible than any existing spec I have seen, and are 
the best choice for that reason.  If the view of the CSS WG is different 
and it believes that a specification must provide extra capability to be 
considered a better choice, or that accessibility and clean design are 
not considerations, then I would like to be told so now by someone who 
can speak authoritatively on the matter.  If not then stop bringing up 
capability, unless it is something you feel is lacking or unnecessary in 
a proposed specification, because there is no point to be made by doing so.

Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> The existing text layout markup can handle all possible documents of text I have found so this point, except for where Arabic runs are rotated to flow from top to bottom, which is not normally found. The examples of such text are only found in a limited number of old hand written Mongolian documents. What is specified in XSL-FO is able to handle all combinations.
> Can you provide some samples that would support/justify changing existing properties specified for some years to something new? I have gone through a lot of documents and verified the existing writing-mode, direction, etc. provide the capability to mark up. 

Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 10:01:24 UTC