- 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
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 But since you've marked this as something that may be superceded by UTR50 I don't think we need to dwell on it.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 UTC