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

I think you should definitely add Liam's proposals for property names 
(block-before, inline-after,...).

Regards,   Martin.

On 2012/10/12 15:06, Koji Ishii wrote:
> +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?
>
>
> Regards,
> Koji
>
> ----------
> 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 06:31:21 UTC