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

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

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 02:06:59 -0400
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
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>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0DA231A519@MAILR001.mail.lan>
+1 to discuss again, although I don't think they're new information. Head/tail has some semantic problems not only in Japanese but globally because of its ambiguity as Liam pointed out, and that was already identified in my understanding. 

But it's true that more perspectives were provided at ML than we discussed at conf call. So far, opinions we see are:

1A. before/after are hard to understand
1B. not hard to understand

2A. before/after needs to memorize which axis it indicates
2B. head/tail doesn't better describe axis, should use other terminologies if this is the motivation

3A. Against any changes because of backward compatibility with XSL-FO and TTML
3B. terminology changes are ok as long as models are compatible
3C. the compatibility is lower priority than improving

4A. Split logical directions as it is too controversial at this point and the demand is lower than other features in writing-modes
4B. splitting doesn't make sense

Did I miss any opinions?


From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:10 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: Koji Ishii; Asmus Freytag; MURAKAMI Shinyu; Sylvain Galineau; "Martin J. Dürst"; liam@w3.org; koba; www-style@w3.org; fantasai; public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-writing-modes] css-logical (was before/after terminology alternative?

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> 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?
Given that you'll apparently object to Koji's suggested compromise as
well, it doesn't matter very much.

I would like to remind that we have at least two new pieces of information that weren't available when the WG made its resolution:

(1) evidence that head/tail has some semantic problems in Japanese;
(2) evidence of a prior expressed intent to maintain or enhance a single underlying formatting model between CSS, XSL-FO, and (by extension) other specs that derive from these (e.g., TTML);

Given this new information, I would suggest we put the question back on the table at the upcoming F2F to attempt to obtain a final, acceptable resolution. 
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 06:07:37 UTC

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