W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css3-writing-modes] comments on text-orientation

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <681649205.6629540.1335253066061.JavaMail.root@zmmbox3.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com>
fantasai wrote:

> > However, looking over the current definition of 'text-orientation'
> > property values in section 5.1 and Appendix B&  C, they are still
> > defined somewhat imprecisely. The current spec trys to define
> > orientation behavior in terms of vertical vs. horizontal scripts
> > (listed in Appendix B) and then points at Appendix C for the
> > definition of codepoints in common, inherited and unknown script
> > categories.  But some "vertical" scripts include codepoints that
> > have a default sideways orientation based on UTR50 (e.g. halfwidth
> > katakana), so this doesn't quite work.
> >
> > I think it would be much simpler to define behavior in terms of
> > the underlying East Asian Orientation value for a given codepoint.
> 
> I've done this, insofar as possible given the current state of UTR50. :/
>    http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#text-orientation
> 
> As Koji notes, we feel it's important that an author can read the
> definitions and have an idea of what they do. So I've kept some text
> that summarizes what's going on; however the normative definition
> points to UTR50 as its implementation.

I don't think Appendix C does anything other than propose an alternate
model for defining orientation.  But since you've marked this as
something that may be superceded by UTR50 I don't think we need to
dwell on it.

> > I think it's also important to point out when features for vertical
> > alternates are enabled and when they aren't:
> 
> I've pulled this out of the value definitions and defined it in its
> own subsection:
>    http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#vertical-font-features

See separate post:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Apr/0650.html

I'm fine with the other revisions.

Regards,

John Daggett
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 07:38:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT