W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Direction

From: Michael Hamm <MHamm@gc.cuny.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:34:03 -0500
Message-ID: <8CD183325ADED411AEAD00034708D0B9C357EC@mail.gc.cuny.edu>
To: "'www-style@w3.org'" <www-style@w3.org>, "'www-international@w3.org'" <www-international@w3.org>
I previously wrote[1], in part:
> The Direction property (CSS2) allows only for 'rtl' and 'ltr'
> <snip> [A]dd a 'ttb' (top-to-bottom) value, and a Secondary-
> direction property indicating which way the lines should be
> ordered.

I apologize. I see now that an I18n WG Working Draft
<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-i18n-format-19990726/> discusses this
(though does not discuss boustrophedon (sic), which Mr. Woolley[2]
mentions).

On a different topic concerning that WD, I suggest text-decoration be used
instead of font-emphasize[3].  That this new property can affect line-height
is irrelevant; nothing forbids new values for text-decoration from affecting
line-height.  And I fail to understand the WD's rationale that "the emphasis
style should be distinguished from the text-decoration which is another
method to 'emphasize' text content"; if it means that font-emphasis-style
"is another method to 'emphasize' text content" whereas text-decoration is
not, then I differ: underlining is certainly used for emphasis.

(I can't seem to set the Reply-to header in this idiotic e-mail client, but
mean for replies to be sent to www-international.)

Michael Hamm
BA Math scl, PBK, NYU
mhamm@gc.cuny.edu
http://www.crosswinds.net/~msh210/

----------
Notes:
[1] Archived:
<URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2001Feb/0083.html>.
[2] Archived:
<URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2001Feb/0086.html>.
[3] Or perhaps vice versa (though not if one wants backward compatibility),
but not both.
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2001 12:35:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:56 GMT