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

RE: [css3-writing-modes] vertical writing mode and visual formatting

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:46:25 -0400
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
CC: CSS W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0AA3634260@MAILR001.mail.lan>
Hi Alan,

> By declaring a writing-mode, what we establish is a 'block progression
> context'. In saying this Koji, the concept is at this moment undefined
> or as I would say, unforeseen. I do propose that we do have such a
> thing as a 'block progression context'.
> The default writing-mode is lr-tb (ttb block progression and ltr
> inline progression). This should be mentioned along with the above
> mentioned 'block progression context' in CSS2.1.

If I understand correctly, I think you're talking about page progression:

As also John pointed out, you're right that what UI should do with right-to-left page progression is not covered in the spec. I'm not sure if it should be in the scope of this spec, or of any other specs. I'll talk to some folks to see what we should do.

> Currently IE8 and IE9 beta treats the above tb-rl box as a 'block
> formatting context' [2]. This means that a float that is within tb-rl
> box will not overlap the tb-rl box. This I believe is a buggy way of
> handling vertical text, even in small fragments. The same happens in
> IE8 and IE9 beta just by setting inline progression to rtl.

Overwrapping floats seems a product bug to me, and it's probably better for a product bug to talk to the vendor rather than here.

I have to admit that I'm still at learning of CSS, and thus I can't be sure if the combination of current CSS 2.1 box model and current writing-mode spec covers the case you're talking about properly. So, from what you're saying, it's not clear to me that you're talking about a CSS spec bug or a product bug, but for now, it looks like a product bug to me. Am I correct on this?

Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 03:44:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:40 UTC