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

>>>>> 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