W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

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

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 05:32:22 -0400
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0DA231A25F@MAILR001.mail.lan>
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 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] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#abstract-box

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:22 UTC