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

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:19:09 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fLfj+cZ7=DoHvU3u6U4fmvXdCavZ+=qXqxUL7N2-jBZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, 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>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> all.

Due to my own fault, I failed to object at the time the WG made that
resolution. At this point, I will need to raise an FO unless it can be
agreed to revert that earlier decision. Which is easier? Doing an FO
process or reverting?
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 01:19:56 UTC

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