>> 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? Regards, KojiReceived 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