- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 05:49:04 -0400
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, 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>
>>>>> 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. I think it's too much to say "for no reason." Some people explicitly say before/after are hard to understand, we've been thinking of this issue for more than 6 months and head/foot are the only candidate we could come up with. 3 months since the resolution, nobody could come up with better alternatives. It looks to me that you and Murakami-san want to take precedence on compatibility with XSL-FO than easier to understand. Do I understand you correctly? The compatibility with XSL-FO is nice, I agree with it, but it's not a requirement for us if there were good reasons, is it? Regards, Koji
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2012 09:49:34 UTC