W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

Re: [css-ruby] 'right' vs 'bopomofo' value name

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:34:30 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF802D6.3060800@inkedblade.net>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org, public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
On 12/02/2010 10:08 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
>
> A major reason for the proposed change is that 'right' has been
> commonly confused with 'before' in vertical text in previous past
> discussions.  That points to the need to use a different word
> than 'right'.  I think leaving the value as 'right' will be
> particularly confusing to the general public once they start
> using this.
>
> Next, the value should cause not only the vertical arrangement
> to kick in (unlike 'inline'), but also the special treatment
> for placement of tone marks, which only occurs, as far as I'm
> aware, when bopomofo is used as ruby to the right of base text
> (ie. it *doesn't* occur when bopomofo is used with
> ruby-position: before).  This value needs to be a clue to the
> user agent that this special treatment should be applied.

Does the special arrangement apply when bopomofo is used in
vertical writing mode but not as ruby?

> Also, I'm not convinced that vertical alignment of ruby to the
> right of a single character is such a widespread use case (or
> if it even exists outside the bopomofo case) that it's necessary
> to choose a universally applicable name for the value.
>
> I therefore think it is clearer for users if we use a script
> specific label for this very specific feature, much as we do
> in text-justify: kashida or text-justify: inter-ideograph, etc.

The script-specific labels in text-justify are script-specific
because the behavior is script-specific. In this case, the
behavior does not need to be script-specific.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:36:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT