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

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

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:40:42 -0400
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0DA2319C08@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] 
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:
>>> I think this is an issue where there won't be a single correct answer, both
>>> "head/foot" and "before/after" makes sense in some cases and doesn't in other
>>> cases, and therefore we can't make everyone happy.
>>> I'm more concerned that this issue blocks the spec for months. Why doesn't the WG make a vote and decide?
>>We did.  We decided on switching to head/foot some time ago.  ^_^
> to which I have a standing objection

Thanks Tab, I searched for minutes and found one[1]. I see Glenn's "-1" but everyone else is happy or can live with, and then the WG resolution appears. I'm sorry to who doesn't like it, but it looks like it's reasonably fair process to me.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/1149.html


Received on Sunday, 23 September 2012 08:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:21 UTC