- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:39:00 +0200
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>,koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>
- CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>,www-style@w3.org,Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>,"Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>,MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>,fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>,"public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Most people who said they were confused weren't confused with logical directions as such, just by having a hard time remembering which is which between the start/end and before/after keyword pairs. It is easier to remember that head/foot are the block direction keywords. Had the new terminology (head/foot) been introduced in flexbox value or property names already, I would be strongly opposed to reverting to before/after. But as far as I can tell, the only references are in prose, and phrased in a neutral way, like this for example: " The main-start and main-end directions are equivalent to the before/head and after/foot directions". Writing modes is still in my mind more amenable to change, and although I don't really enjoy renaming things all the time, I am somewhat receptive to the arguments in favor of before/after. All in all, I can live with either solution, and I think there is still room for change, if that's what we want. Florian "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: >I agree with Tokushige, Glenn, and Addison. > >As an additional argument, based on my long work in >internationalization, I have always felt that while it may not be >hopelessly bad to have gratuitous differences for features of specs >that >are widely used. But having such differences in features that are used >only rarely, in particular in internationalization, is really, really >bad. > >Also, I would like to point everybody to http://www.w3.org/Style/, >which >among other things says: > >"CSS and XSL use the same underlying formatting model and designers >therefore have access to the same formatting features in both >languages. >W3C will work hard to ensure that interoperable implementations of the >formatting model are available." > >This is part of a common understanding that was gained at a time when >there were heavy clashes between the proponents of the two >technologies. >For some background, please also see >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/1999Jun/0040.html. > >Regards, Martin. > >On 2012/09/24 10:56, koba wrote: >>> Saying "hard to understand" is subjective, so not everyone may >agree. If you change "speculation" to "subjective," it's more >understandable. But when a good number of people say "hard to >understand for me," even if it's subjective and even if it's not hard >to understand for you, shouldn't we take them into account? >> >> When I first read XSL-FO spec, it was difficult to undertand >> before/after for me too. But the difficulty was caused by >> the concept of logical direction but not by terminology. >> >> You had better to analyse why people says "hard to understand". >> IMO, a change of terminology will not make the issue easy. >> >> Regards, >> >> Tokushige Kobayashi
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 08:39:27 UTC