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

Re: [css3-writing-modes] css-logical (was before/after terminology alternative?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:51:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCApk284wLNqbEso1G6w3ZoZPRaPZP+2svX5kX=WHLG7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Cc: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:
>>>>   People can easily distinguish them.
>>> Fully agree with that statement. The "::" create enough context.
>> I don't disagree with you two.
>> But it looks to me that saying "easy enough" to who says "it's confusing me" doesn't seem
>> to solve anything, does it?
>> Could you propose a solution then?  Without any good solution and without either side
>> compromising, we'll end up with voting I guess.
> A good solution popped up in my mind.
> Create a new spec, say, css-logical, and move all logical directions to the spec. Edit flexbox and writing-modes not to use any logical directions. It looks like it's editorial changes for flexbox, so it won't bring it back to WD.
> This way, both parties can discuss until satisfied, while flexbox and writing-modes can go forward on REC track. Not only both-wins, but all-four-wins.
> Does this sound reasonable?

No, it seems weird to me.  This is a basic terminology issue, I don't
see any gain to be made from trying to centralize it in one spec, and
in the meantime remove all mention of it from others.

The WG made a resolution, it seems reasonable, and though some people
would prefer a different name, there are no strong arguments against
it.  I highly suspect that if it were brought up again, we'd stick
with our current resolution.  It's just a bikeshedding issue, after

Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 15:52:25 UTC

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