- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:37:53 -0700
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, www-style@w3.org, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM, "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. Note that this understanding was produced over a decade ago, during a time, as you say, when there were heavy clashes between the two techs. That time is long past; CSS clearly and decisively won on the web, and XSL-FO is being shuttered as a W3C technology, with us absorbing Liam for his expertise in printing tech (which XSL-FO was always somewhat better at) so we can bring CSS up to rough feature parity. XSL-FO is effectively a dead technology, one which we shouldn't worry about when thinking about naming. On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com> wrote: > before/after clash with ::before/::after which is unfortunate. But aliasing > just creates further mess where the same names have different meaning > depending on context. There's no aliasing in CSS. CSS has never used the names before/after as a logical direction in any part of the language; it has only existed in spec prose to explain things. > I just went to the paint shop and the guy there suggested 'pre/post' as > suitable terms for aliasing. pre -> before; post -> after kind of like in postscript.;-) IIRC, that pair was presented as an option when we were discussing this as well. We decided we liked head/foot better as a group. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 17:38:41 UTC