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

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