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

>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Glenn Adams <> wrote:
>> i'd like to hear what the I18N WG concludes on this matter before commenting further
> I would suggest the CSS WG formally request review of the terminology promulgated
> in [1] by the I18N Core WG for the purpose of determining adherence to BCP and other
> I18N guidelines.
> [1]

I18N WG ran out of time last week, and this week we didn't have a call. The item is on agenda, hopefully we can discuss next week.

In the meantime, it'd be appreciated if you could clarify what compatibility you're talking about.

If I understand the discussion correctly, there are two opinions against the change:

1. "head/foot" is no better than "before/after"
2. The compatibility with XSL-FO.

I18N WG can discuss #1 in terms of i18n perspective, but #2 is out of scope of I18N WG in my understanding. Am I correct on this?

Also, I'm not clear on what "compatibility" we're talking about. In my understanding, CSS and XSL-FO are not file-compatible, nor property-name-compatible, are they? So we're talking about just whether to use the same terminologies or not.

Could you or someone please confirm if these understanding are correct?


Received on Sunday, 7 October 2012 09:32:55 UTC