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

# I guess I sent from wrong mail-address, so re-sending:

>> Thank you for the clarifications. It looks like there are two points 
>> in the
>>  "#2: compatibility" discussion.
>> Liam said he cares functionality than terminology, so whether the  
>> "compatibility" includes terminology or not is one point of discussions.
>> Another point I saw is, given XSL-FO is finished, it may no longer be 
>> appropriate for an evolving technology to keep compatibility with a 
>> finished technology.
> As a committer on the Apache FOP project, an implementation of XSL-FO, 
> which is implementing new features proposed for a future XSL-FO 2.0, I 
> would definitely take issue with the above statement. XSL-FO is not finished.
> It is in very active use, and new features are being implemented and 
> proposed all the time. When and if those make it into a new W3C 
> revision of XSL-FO is another story, and besides the point.

Thank you for the info, I understand that better now. But since discussion here is about W3C's statement about compatibility, someone taking over the spec doesn't seem to make a big difference, does it?

Still, either way, I don't think this "compatibility" part is related with international, and is purely an issue for CSS WG to resolve.

>> Neither of them seem to be related with I18N WG, so I guess what 
>> you're asking I18N WG to discuss is about #1 ("head/foot" is no 
>> better than "before/after") from i18n perspective. Please correct me 
>> if I misunderstand.
> It is better you ask the I18N WG for a response than put words in their mouth.

I'm a member of I18N WG, so I need to understand the issue to discuss there. Your words certainly helped me to understand the issue better, I appreciate.

Also, all I18N WG members are already in CC, so they're reading your words directly.

Note that the above opinion is my personal one, not from I18N WG, just in case.


Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 13:47:04 UTC