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

Re: [css3-text-layout] New editor's draft - margin-before/after/start/end etc.

From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:18:48 +0900
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <20100604171847.9581.B794FC04@asahi-net.or.jp>
> Whoa there cowboy.  How does criticism of a proposal to add lots of
> difficult to implement new properties constitute "thinking that
> vertical writing is not really required"?  Several times you've made
> very broad assertions against those who criticize the margin-start,
> etc. proposal without making the effort to understand their criticisms.
> It would be better to focus on explaining more clearly what problems
> your proposal solves and why it's better than other approaches.

CSS controls the future of e-book as well as web pages for 
all languages and cultures.  I thus think that key members are 
oblidged to study requirements from all over the 
world, especially when requirement documents are available.

To me, some of the proposals from important members of the 
CSS WG is based on poor understanding of the requirements.  
I have already explained why :lang does not work  
in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010May/0668.html
I am also very skeptical about :ttb, particularly because the dir
attribute does not allow "ttb", and also because "What is
needed is relativity based on what users choose rather than 
relativity based on what is specified within documents or stylesheets"
(again in 
in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010May/0668.html)

To be clear, I have never made broad assertions against those who
criticize the margin-start, etc. proposal.  I did make such assertions 
against those who raise counter proposals based on poor 
understanding of the requirement or the dir attribute.

> I think a number of the alternate proposals are trying to propose just
> that, graceful fallback behavior.  One proposal is for a new
> pseudo-selector that older clients would not recognize.  Authors would
> put fallback rules in style rules without the pseudo-selector and
> vertical-text-specific rules in style rules with the pseudo-selector,
> that way only user agents that recognize the new selector would use
> the styles defined within.

I am still puzzled by the pseudo-seletor proposal.  When dir="ttb" is 
not allowed by HTML, how can the pseudo-selector proposal work?

> Other than graceful fallback are there other reasons you feel logical
> properties are required?

This is the biggest reason.

> A lot of folks at browser companies are spending time and effort to
> make typography better on the web.  If a proposed change requires a lot
> of work and doesn't really solve underlying problems completely, why not
> consider a different approach that does a better job?

A different approach is fine, but :lang is broken and :ttb is extremely 
doubtful. 

> It seems to me some form of pseudo-selector or pseudo-element
> dependent on writing-mode or whatever should be a simple solution
> here, one that matches how authors would actually use styles specific
> to vertical text layout.

If you are proposing relativity based on which of the horizontal or 
vertical directions the user or reading system or browsers chooses 
rather than the lang or dir attribute, you are proposing something 
different from what has been suggested.  I am certainly open to 
such a proposal.

> > > For supporting Japanese layouts with a mixture of horizontal and
> > > vertical text, I think it would be more interesting to consider a
> > > better grid model and how to do "multi-column" vertical layout
> > > rather than convoluting the box model.
> > 
> > I have spoken with many people about the requirements on e-books for
> > Japanese text layout.  Nobody said that a better grid model is a
> > minimal requirement.  Most people assume that the support of
> > vertical writing is a must.
>
> You seem to be specifying specific solutions, not requirements. 

I do not think so.  I am just saying vertical writing is needed 
very badly and that people can live with positioning not based 
on line boxes.

> Implementing vertical text layout affects other parts of CSS, like
> multi-column layout.  

True.

> And once it's available then it's a natural
> extension to want a way to easily mix horizontal and vertical text
> blocks on a grid, needs shared by non-CJK authors.

I know that some implementations of EPUB in Japan already do that.  
Does such mixture require that a better grid model is specified in 
CSS?

> > It is true that vertical writing is not often used in Korea or
> > mainland China.  However, when I asked "Do you need vertical writing
> > for e-books?" to the Korean head of delegation in SC34 and the
> > Chinese head of delegation, they immediately said yes.  The Chinese
> > HoD once wrote "China has never given up vertical writing".
> 
> Examples of Korean vertical text layout would be interesting.  And
> understanding the contexts in which vertical text is used/required in
> Taiwan/China would also be useful.

I am also curious and will continue to speak with Koreans, Chinese, 
and Taiwanese.  I have seen Taiwan newspaper writtin in 
vertical writing.

Cheers,
Makoto
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 08:19:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT