On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote: > > 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 > > Once again I remind the WG that there are two W3C RECs (XSL-FO and TTML) that use before/after, and that changing these for no reason whatsoever (other than the fact the the persons that wish to make a change have not used these two specs) is not a sufficient reason and should not be undertaken without further substantial reason (of which I know of none). I will enter an FO against the WM spec when it goes up for CR if this unwarranted change is not reversed. Regards, Glenn
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2012 09:06:06 UTC