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

RE: [css3-writing-modes] vertical orientation and UTR50

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:21:04 -0400
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D5E51D0BC@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> I don't think there's a need for a separate HO property and have posted a message
> in the UTR50 forum stating this. [1]  In fact, there's no role for HO in defining the
> behavior of the 'text-orientation' property since this property only affects vertical
> runs, *not* horizontal runs.  So the sentence starting with "The one exception..." can
> be omitted entirely.  In vertical runs, Mongolian and Phags-pa are displayed upright,
> just as the MVO/SVO reflects.

Well, you know far more on Mongolian than I do, so I'd like to trust you, but other two I also trust -- Laurentiau and fantasai think Mongolian and Phags-pa should be rendered rotated, so I hope you can find a consensus in the forum. I guess it's just difference of visual orientations and rendering orientations, maybe wrong, but it's a UTC's issue.

HO was resolved on the last UTC conference, it may not survive as you say, but we can remove from our spec if they were removed from UTR#50. We were there too, and supported the resolution, so not using HO looks strange to me. I was ok either if it was an informative text, but if the text is normative, I think we should follow UTC's resolution.


> The spec needs to normatively refer to MVO and SVO (*not* derived
> properties) and let the Unicode discussions resolve the issue of which values apply to
> specific codepoints.

Agreed, I was thinking the same. Since we don't take snapshot any longer, we don't need simple versions.


> Taro Yamamoto from Adobe, who attended the F2F in Kyoto last year, has posted a
> very lucid document concerning MVO values.  I think it reflects nicely some of the
> concerns of the Japanese typographic
> community:
> http://blogs.adobe.com/CCJKType/files/2012/07/TaroUTR50SortedList112.pdf

> UTR50 forum posting: http://unicode.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=340


Yeah, a few in Japan agree with him, and I reported that before to the UTC. Now he wrote by himself, it's good. I don't agree with his opinion, but it's a UTC issue, not a CSS issue, right?


Regards,
Koji

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:18:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT