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

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:49 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.
>
> 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?
>

My position is as follows:

   - before/after is already used in standard usage in the W3C for the
   precise same semantics as are being discussed here, and this has been the
   case for at least 10 years
   - i am not aware of any complaints regarding understanding this usage
   for these many years
   - the claim that before/after is difficult to understand is nothing but
   speculation
   - changing before/after to head/foot in the CSS context introduces a
   definite level of new confusion by assigning new names to existing
   understood names
   - XSL-FO and TTML, both of which make use of CSS for keywords and
   semantics, will either require modification or exist in a variant form if
   one set of names (before/after) is used with XSL-FO and TTML and another
   set is used with CSS

My conclusion is that compatibility should take precedence over the
speculation that somehow these new keywords are easier to understand than
the existing keywords.