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

Just an additional datapoint in this discussion:

I just noticed that CSS already has properties page-break-before and 
page-break-after (see Rather obviously, 
these indicate the same directions as the -before and -after relative 
direction properties already in XSL-FO, but are orthogonal to the 
:before and :after pseudo-elements.

These seem not to have caused any significant confusion up to now.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2012/09/26 6:38, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 10:37 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Note that this understanding was produced over a decade ago, during a
>> time, as you say, when there were heavy clashes between the two techs.
>>   That time is long past; CSS clearly and decisively won on the web,
> It did (although the XSL WG was never aiming for the Web with XSL-FO).
> It might also be worth mentioning that we'd reached consensus on
> renaming some of the really unwieldy directional terminology. E.g. block
> progression direction and inline progression direction could both lose
> the word "progression" without loss of clarity.
>> and XSL-FO is being shuttered as a W3C technology, with us absorbing
>> Liam for his expertise in printing tech (which XSL-FO was always
>> somewhat better at) so we can bring CSS up to rough feature parity.
> Yes, I expect to be making a formal announcement next month, but the
> XSL-FO work at W3C has basically ended because of low participation. The
> technology *is* in widespread use off the Web, e.g. for printed books,
> bank statements, driving licences, post-office forms... and it would be
> a mistake to say the technology itself is dead. XSL-FO usage is
> increasing, in fact, largely driven by a rise in XML publishing
> workflows to handle print+ebook+epub+ibook+...
> CSS has gained Tony as well as me (and I expect to have more time
> available starting in a month or so).
> I happen not to like header/footer because they already have other
> meanings in the print world, along with head/foot/back/fore. But I'm
> more worried about functionality than terminology.
> Thanks,
> Liam

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 08:23:41 UTC