W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

RE: [css3-writing-modes] Summary of Tr in UTR#50 and 'text-orientation' discussions

From: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:23:27 +0000
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <406ff711dc4743b3a1496050a93d7d26@BY2PR03MB192.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 4:59 PM
> 
> We resolved two years ago to base orientation *normatively* on a clear,
> well-defined orientation character property.  Through many twists and turns,
> we've basically got something that works, is fairly clear, and for the most part
> reflects common practice.  There's just one crumb of "optional" behavior for
> "Tr" codepoints that doesn't makes sense for authors or implementations.  I
> suggest that rather than giving up on normatively defining default orientation
> that we simply purge the optional behavior and move on.
> 

Removing the entire section of 5.1.1 will contradict the above resolution - agreed. However, if we were to drop the second part of that section should give us defined behavior for character orientation while leaving Tr to Unicode. This is the sentence I propose we remove.

"For Tr characters, which are intended to be either transformed or rotated sideways, the UA may assume that appropriate glyphs for upright typesetting are given in the font and render them upright; alternately it may check for such glyphs first, and fall back to typesetting them sideways if the appropriate glyphs are missing."

Thanks,
Rossen
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 16:23:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 9 October 2013 16:23:58 UTC