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

Re: [css3-writing-modes] recent edits

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:35:39 -0800
Message-ID: <4CDC539B.8030301@inkedblade.net>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 11/10/2010 11:34 AM, John Daggett wrote:
> * We resolved to remove 'horizontal-bt' as a value for writing-mode


> * Section 7 still contains wording that implies vague things about the "logicalness" of width/height.
> In 7.1:
>> The height properties (‘height’, ‘min-height’, and ‘max-height’)
>> refer to the physical height, and the width properties (‘width’,
>> ‘min-width’, and ‘max-width’) refer to the physical width. However,
>> the rules used to calculate the height and width are logical: the
>> height calculation rules in [CSS21] are used for the logical height
>> (which could be either the physical height or physical width).
>> Likewise the width calculation rules in [CSS21] are used for the
>> logical width.
>> As a corollary, percentages on the margin and padding properties,
>> which are calculated with respect to the containing block width
>> regardless of their dimension, are calculated with respect to the
>> logical width of the containing block.

This section is explaining how the CSS2.1 box model applies to vertical
writing modes. If you feel there is insufficient detail on how this
works ("vague things"), please explain exactly what information you
feel is missing. But it has nothing to do with the logicalness of any

> I'm not entirely clear what 7.2.2 implies about existing properties
> that have directional dependencies.  So 'left' and 'right' for
> text-align will effectively map to start and end?  Would it be better
> to add explicit 'start' and 'end' values?  Ditto for float/clear.  I
> also think vertical-align needs to be flushed out more explicitly.

Please read the Line Orientation section:
It defines the terms "line right", "line left", "over", and "under".
The line right and line left directions are not equivalent to start
and end.

Note: Linking to the CVS version because Bert's postprocess script
is broken. :/

> Sections 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 seem like they should be removed for now.

I strongly disagree that 7.2.3 should be removed. The mapping of
CSS2.1's layout rules and property definitions to the appropriate
behavior in vertical layout depends on this mapping (which is
defined in earlier sections). Removing this summary table, which
make it easier to see the effect of those definitions in different
writing modes, seems like an absurd request.

As for 7.2.4, I don't understand why you think it should be removed.
Distinguishing between the physical behavior of box-shadow offsets
vs. the logical behavior of the 'vertical-align' property seems like
a useful thing to be pointing out.

> Maybe the two "examples" V and VI would be better as diagrams in the
> section 2?

Possibly. But they also diagram the terms "logical height" and
"logical width", which aren't introduced until section 7.

Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 20:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:44 UTC