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

Thank you for expressing your opinion, but it looks to me that this edit is misleading. Implementers who read 5.1.1 are likely to misunderstand, and technically speaking, Tr is not an upright characters.

-----Original Message-----
From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 7:01 PM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: www-style@w3.org; CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)
Subject: Re: [css3-writing-modes] Re-Summary of Tr in UTR#50 and text-orientation discussions

On 10/11/2013 10:56 PM, Koji Ishii wrote:
>
> 1. SHOULD|MUST render the fallback rotated sideways.
> 2. MUST render the fallback upright.
> 3. MAY render the fallback upright, or MAY render rotated sideways.

Just wanted to give a heads-up that I just checked in some changes to how the spec words things. It's still saying #3, so nothing's changed with respect to this argument here. But I tried to address John's comment about setting font designers' expectations correctly and to fix another error.

The rules for "mixed" typesetting now read as John wanted:
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes/#vertical-orientations

But the bit about Tr handling is still there; it's just been moved into the section on "upright typesetting", where it belongs:
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes/#vertical-font-features

and the wording's been tweaked to say that fonts are expected to supply alternate glyphs for this category. Let me know if the it needs further tweaking for appropriate use of font terminology etc.

Anyway, carry on. (Fwiw, I'm with Glenn/Koji/i18nwg on this issue.)

~fantasai

Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 18:06:55 UTC