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

RE: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and before/after definitions in LR vertical writing mode

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:14:26 -0700
To: Ishii Koji <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "'WWW International'" <www-international@w3.org>
CC: "btmnk0825@gmail.com" <btmnk0825@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE2F61DA5FA23945A4EA99A212B157952ABFD5F201@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>
Ishii,
  Thank you for your perceptive response. With respect to the "Pros", I have the following comments.

1. Your second Pro for 'over/under" is in my opinion a "con" rather that a "pro". Introducing a new concept adds complexity. This does not seem justified.
2. Under "Pros" for "before/after" I would add
        a. Before/After is consistent with the handling of emphasis in both Chinese and Japanese.
        b. Before/After is independent of orientation of rotated text (which Under/Over is not).
        c. The handling of super-/sub-scripts is clearly related to baselines and has nothing to do with the discussion on emphasis. As I indicated with the two orientations of Hebrew/Arabic text, the subscripts are aligned to the baseline in the chosen orientation.
        d. Before/After make sense in both vertical and horizontal writing-modes. Over/under does not make (obvious) sense in a vertical writing-mode.

By my count that means that there are more "Pros" for Before/After" than there are for "Over/Under". Yes, underlines are defined, but they should have been handled as emphasis marks and might have been if the original CSS spec was not so Western centric.

Steve Zilles


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ishii Koji [mailto:kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:07 PM
> To: Stephen Zilles; Richard Ishida; 'fantasai'; www-style@w3.org; 'WWW
> International'
> Cc: btmnk0825@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and before/after
> definitions in LR vertical writing mode
>
> Thank you for writing this up. This is really helpful.
>
> First, I completely understand the needs for "auto" value, and this should
> be considered carefully before the spec is finalized. Your opinion is
> greatly appreciated. But this is a little different topic; as you pointed
> out, regardless of whether we have auto or not, we need a way to explicitly
> specify which side emphasis marks, ruby, or underlines are drawn.
>
> There will not be the right answer anyway, because we're trying to name
> something that doesn't exist in English. So either answer could be true.
>
> The same thing actually happened for Japanese and Chinese. Underline in
> Japanese vertical writing is drawn on right as you might know. In Japanese,
> it's called "傍線", which means "side-line", so neither "under" nor "over"
> is the correct translations. We chose to name it "overline", because "over"
> is correct if you look at alphabet orientations in vertical text. "before"
> is also a right answer because the baseline direction matches to block
> progression in these scripts. As a result, we've had inconsistency where
> underline position is under|over while ruby/emphasis mark position is
> before|after. But this didn't get much attention up until now.
>
> Now that we're facing a new case where "over" defined in the context as we
> did for Japanese and Chinese does not match to the block progression.
>
> Here're pros/cons as I think.
>
> * over|under
>
> Pros:
> * Can resolve inconsistency with underline position before ruby/emphasis
> marks specs are finalized.
> * Can introduce a new directional concept that is based on baseline. There
> may be more features like this in future.
> * Since underline spec is finalized, it makes sense to use the
> terminologies to indicate positions based on baseline, rather than changing
> underline spec.
> * The way we name it is consistent with the way we named underline for
> Japanese and Chinese.
> * This is consistent with which direction super/subscripts are drawn,
> although super/sub uses different terminology than under/over, so this
> argument can be a little weak.
>
> * before|after
>
> Pros:
> * Do not have to introduce new directional concept and terminologies,
> although underline is still an exception.
> * Can keep backward compatibility with old WD.
>
> Do you have any additions to the list? I may underestimate pros for
> before|after.
>
>
> Note that I cc'ed a Mongolian friend of mine who's studying Mongolian word
> processor.
>
>
> Regards,
> Koji Ishii
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Zilles [mailto:szilles@adobe.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:43 AM
> To: Ishii Koji; Richard Ishida; 'fantasai'; www-style@w3.org; 'WWW
> International'
> Subject: RE: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and before/after
> definitions in LR vertical writing mode
>
> It seems to me that several things are being confused.
>
> The advantage of "start" "end" "before" and "after" is that the depend only
> on the "writing-mode" and not on the script or language being used. For
> that reason, these "coordinate reference" may not be the best references
> for describing where emphasis marks go. They are, on the otherhand, clear.
>
> Consider Mongolian in its traditional script (rather than in Cyrillic
> script). This traditional script is derived from a semitic (Syriac from
> Aramaic) script that was written right to left horizontally. The script was
> adapted and shifted 90 degrees to be written top to bottom (a la Chinese)
> by the Uighurs. The Mongol (and Manchu) scripts were adapted from the
> Uighur script. Now, since the script was originally a right to left script,
> rotating it 90 degrees meant that the block progression direction became
> left to right.
>
> So, why is this important? Well, at least historically, an emphasis mark on
> the right of a vertical line of Mongolian script would be an "underline"
> (and not an "overline". Whether a modern writer of Mongolian would see this
> as being the case, I do not know. I know that with the adoption of the
> Cyrillic script for Mongolian, the language came to be written left to
> right, which means that the "original" letter forms of the Mongolian script
> are writing "upside down" in current horizontal practice.
>
> Why this diatribe? Well, although "under" and "over" have clear meanings
> for horizontal writing, they do not have such clear meanings for vertical
> writing.
>
> That is why I would argue the following:
> (1) There seems to be a favored place for emphasis marks in east asian
> languages. This place tends to be, at least, language specific, and is,
> perhaps, even country or area specific. As has been noted, in horizontal
> writing, the PRC uses dots below the text and Japan uses dots above the
> text. Similarly, in vertical writing, PRC uses dots to the left of the line
> and Japan normally prefers dots to the right of the line. (These
> preferences are at least consistent with the idea of a right hand 90 degree
> rotation to get vertical text.) This means, however, that there is no good
> default position for the emphasis marks other than "auto". Here, "auto"
> means look at the language and position the emphasis marks accordingly.
> (2) If "auto" is the default/initial value for emphasis position, then
> anyone setting an explicit position must know what they are doing. If they
> know what they are doing, which is more useful to them, (a) coordinate
> references that are fixed with respect to writing-mode or (b) coordinate
> references that are relative to a notion of "baseline".
>
> The catch comes with defining the notion of "baseline relative". Consider
> that there are two ways to put rotated Hebrew or Arabic text in a vertical
> line. (The same applies for Latin script texts, but the point is easier to
> see with a right to left text.) One way, the way used for Latin script
> texts, is to rotate the letter forms 90 degrees to the right and then the
> Hebrew/Arabic text runs from bottom to top (to preserve its right to left-
> ness. The other way is to rotate the Hebrew/Arabic glyphs 90 degrees to the
> left and have the text run from top to bottom. Depending on which way the
> text is rotated, "under" is on the left (for the first way) and on the
> right (for the second way). What is "under" supposed to mean in this case?
> Since "before" and "after" do not depend on which why the rotated text is
> rotated, they have a clear, unambiguous meaning no matter which way the
> rotation goes.
>
> Furthermore, if the text in which the Hebrew/Arabic is being embedded (in
> rotated form) is Japanese (or Chinese) then the author may prefer to have
> all the emphasis marks appear on the same side, independently of which way
> the embedded text was rotated. This also suggests using "before" and
> "after" is the better way to go.
>
> Since positioning of the emphasis dots in Chinese ("after" in both
> horizontal and vertical text) and Japanese ("before" in both horizontal and
> vertical text) this suggest the emphasis position can be specified
> explicitly independent of writing-mode.
>
> As I understand things, it is concerns about Mongolian scripts that cast
> doubt on this solution. I have attached an example (from a text book
> teaching the Mongolian script using the Cyrillic script) which does show
> underlining on the "right" or "after" side of the Mongolian text (as noted
> above, I do not know whether that is over or under). I do not have,
> unfortunately, any examples of Mongolian script in horizontal usage so I
> cannot say where the emphasis should be in that case. (Nor do I claim to
> have any expertise in Mongolian.)
>
> What I do believe is that this is a complex question to answer and that we
> need to consider all the factors influencing a decision, including rotated
> text.
>
> Steve Zilles
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ishii Koji [mailto:kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 6:08 PM
> > To: Stephen Zilles; Richard Ishida; 'fantasai'; www-style@w3.org; 'WWW
> > International'
> > Subject: RE: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and before/after
> > definitions in LR vertical writing mode
> >
> > Well, if the issue is only about Ruby, I can agree with you. It's too
> > much work compared to what you get. But unfortunately it's not.
> >
> > If you draw alphabets, they are rotated clockwise by 90 degree. If you
> > underline them, the line is on left. If you superscript them, they
> > move to right. All these indicate that, at the character level, right
> > is the direction for "before", and this conflicts with the block
> progression.
> >
> > If underline is on left, naming that side as "before" is logically
> > incorrect, right?
> >
> > Originally we had only one direction, right. We renamed it to
> > "physical direction" had split it to page progression and block
> > progression because we understand that in RTL and in vertical writing
> > mode, they are actually different.
> >
> > And now we're looking at a new case where block progression differs
> > from character progression. So the proposal looks to me that we need
> > another level of the definition in the logical directions.
> >
> > start|end|before|after the block
> > over|under the character
> >
> > well, if you have find words, I'm fine with them. But as long as
> > target object is different, we need different naming system. It could be:
> >
> > before-char|after-char
> >
> > A little lengthy, and a little misleading from English point of view
> > though.
> >
> > I hope we won't find more new cases that require yet another level of
> > logical direction though :)
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Koji Ishii
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Zilles [mailto:szilles@adobe.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:16 AM
> > To: Ishii Koji; Richard Ishida; 'fantasai'; www-style@w3.org; 'WWW
> > International'
> > Subject: RE: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and before/after
> > definitions in LR vertical writing mode
> >
> > I believe that the issue is not related to the baseline; In vertical
> > text the baseline is often down the center. The problem with Mongolian
> > seems to be that it is asserted that "ruby" would be placed on the
> > righthand side of a line, which, since Mongolian is a TB-LR language
> would be the "after"
> > edge of the line. This would conflict with "before" being the default
> > position.
> >
> > I do not have any examples of Mongolian text with annotations. All of
> > my examples lack such. I would like to see examples to have a better
> > idea of the problem.
> >
> > If it is necessary to introduce new terms for annotation positions, I
> > would certainly prefer "over/under" to "above/below" because, at
> > least, the "over/under" pair relate to "overlines" and "underlines"
> >
> > I think that making the default value of the ruby position be "auto"
> > is a much better way to handle the language differences
> > "automatically", however.
> >
> > Steve Zilles
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ishii Koji [mailto:kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:39 AM
> > > To: Stephen Zilles; Richard Ishida; 'fantasai'; www-style@w3.org;
> > > 'WWW International'
> > > Subject: RE: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and
> > > before/after definitions in LR vertical writing mode
> > >
> > > The issue is that, in Mongolian, block progression does not match to
> > > the baseline.
> > >
> > > In that case, margin-before is left, but "before" value of ruby
> > > position should be right because it's based on baseline, not on
> > > block
> > progression.
> > >
> > > I agree with fantasai that we should come up with a new pair of
> > > words that indicates directions against baseline. And I would vote
> > > "over/under" than "above/below", as the consistency with the
> > > underline
> > makes sense to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Koji Ishii
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Stephen Zilles
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:36 AM
> > > To: Richard Ishida; 'fantasai'; www-style@w3.org; 'WWW International'
> > > Subject: RE: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and
> > > before/after definitions in LR vertical writing mode
> > >
> > > I agree with Richard, especially since Ruby seems more common on
> > > vertical text.
> > >
> > > Steve Zilles
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: www-international-request@w3.org [mailto:www-international-
> > > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 6:11 AM
> > > > To: 'fantasai'; www-style@w3.org; 'WWW International'
> > > > Subject: RE: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and
> > > > before/after definitions in LR vertical writing mode
> > > >
> > > > My first instinct is to question whether there is an issue here.
> > > > Is it a problem that ruby text labelled 'before' will appear to
> > > > the left of vertical mongolian text?  Before and after refer to
> > > > the position relative to the block progression, in my mind. It's
> > > > not about top of line coincidence.
> > > >
> > > > I think that above and below are confusing, since they suggest
> > > > physical locations that are not appropriate for vertical text.
> > > >
> > > > (Note that the CSS Ruby module says " vertical-ideographic layout
> > > > mode, the ruby appears on the right side of the base" - mongolian
> > > > isn't
> > > ideographic.
> > > > That could certainly be made clearer with a note.)
> > > >
> > > > RI
> > > >
> > > > ============
> > > > Richard Ishida
> > > > Internationalization Lead
> > > > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.w3.org/International/
> > > > http://rishida.net/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: www-international-request@w3.org
> > > > > [mailto:www-international- request@w3.org] On Behalf Of fantasai
> > > > > Sent: 26 September 2010 15:15
> > > > > To: www-style@w3.org; 'WWW International'
> > > > > Subject: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and
> > > > > before/after
> > > > definitions in
> > > > > LR vertical writing mode
> > > > >
> > > > > In top-to-bottom horizontal writing mode (English, most other
> > > > > scripts)
> > > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > right-to-left vertical writing mode (CJK), the "before" side and
> > > > > the
> > > > effective
> > > > > top of the line (wrt vertical alignment, glyph rotation, etc)
> > coincide.
> > > > >
> > > > > See
> > > > >
> > > > http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/vertical-text/diagram
> > > > s/
> > > > te
> > > > xt-
> > > > flo
> > > > w-
> > > > > vectors-tb.png
> > > > >
> > > > http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/vertical-text/diagram
> > > > s/
> > > > te
> > > > xt-
> > > > flo
> > > > w-
> > > > > vectors-rl.png
> > > > >
> > > > > But in left-to-right vertical writing mode (Mongolian), the
> "before"
> > > > > side
> > > > and
> > > > > the effective top of the line do not coincide. See the
> > > > > illustration
> > > here:
> > > > >    http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/vertical-
> > > > > text/diagrams/mongolian-vectors.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > The "before" side of a line is to the left. The "top" (ascender)
> > > > > side of
> > > > a
> > > > line
> > > > > is to the right.
> > > > >
> > > > > If ruby-position and text-underline-position use "before" to
> > > > > mean "on the right side of the line" in vertical text, then we
> > > > > have a problem where "before"
> > > > > means
> > > > > different sides of an item depending on what property is involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Either the definitions should be updated to depend on whether
> > > > > the block flow is right-to-left or left-to-right, or the
> > > > > keywords should be changed to something else to avoid a conflict
> > > > > in meaning. I suggest the latter, since I
> > > > suspect
> > > > that
> > > > > the current definitions are the ones that are typographically
> > relevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I haven't encountered any really good pairs of keywords.
> > > > > (Koji
> > > > and I
> > > > > are using "above" and "below" for now.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard, do you have any thoughts on this?
> > > > >
> > > > > ~fantasai
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3159 - Release Date:
> > > > > 09/25/10
> > > > > 18:45:00
> > > >
> > >
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 04:30:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:32 GMT