W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2008

RE: tb-lr Korean etc.

From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:37:22 -0800
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'Ambrose Li' <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D92F7E6A79E88B4684BFC067AE15477D1653BCFC96@NA-EXMSG-S702.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>

In China I see old Chinese text sometimes written horizontally in right to left order.

I have not seen any vertical Chinese in left to right lines. We have a lot of text on door posts, etc. in vertical mode that is commonly seen.

I too would be interested to see examples.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:17 AM
To: 'Ambrose Li'
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: tb-lr Korean etc.


Ambrose,

> Of Ambrose Li
> Sent: 28 February 2008 01:26

> BTW, due to western influence, I have been seeing more and more
> left-to-right vertical text for some years already (first I saw
> Korean, then I saw more and more Chinese). It's only a matter of time
> you can't assume vertical CJK is right-to-left.


Can you provide pointers to the examples?

Do you think they would continue to do that if they had access to the CSS3
writing mode properties?

Cheers,
RI


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/blog/
http://rishida.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Ambrose Li
> Sent: 28 February 2008 01:26
> To: Andrei Polushin
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [CSS3] Box Model Terminology
>
>
> On 27/02/2008, Andrei Polushin <polushin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  fantasai wrote:
> >  > Andrei Polushin wrote:
> >
> > >> Each time one would use his own set of terms, most convenient
> >  >> for his own culture, and the mapping is as follows:
> >  >>
> >  >>  European          Arabic, Hebrew   Chinese, Japanese   Mongolian
> >  >>  ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------
> ----
> >  >>  logical-left      semitic-right    east-asian-bottom   mongolian-
> bottom
> >  >>  logical-right     semitic-left     east-asian-top      mongolian-
> top
> >  >>  logical-top       semitic-top      east-asian-left     mongolian-
> right
> >  >>  logical-bottom    semitic-bottom   east-asian-right    mongolian-
> left
> >
> >
> > I was incorrect here, it should be written as:
> >
> >      European          Arabic, Hebrew   Chinese, Japanese   XSL-FO
> equivalent
> >      ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------
> >      logical-left      semitic-right    east-asian-top      before
> >      logical-right     semitic-left     east-asian-bottom   after
> >      logical-top       semitic-top      east-asian-right    start
> >      logical-bottom    semitic-bottom   east-asian-left     end
>
> While I appreciate the reasoning of the proposal, I find this to be
> even more confusing than things are right now.
>
> If we need writing-directon-independing wording, how about using some
> form of "advance" ("inline direction") and "leading" ("block
> direction")?
>
> --
> cheers,
> -ambrose
>
> Yahoo and Gmail must die. Yes, I use them, but they still must die.
> PS: Don't trust everything you read in Wikipedia. (Very Important)
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 19:40:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:02 GMT