- From: Michael Hamm <MHamm@gc.cuny.edu>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:35:54 -0500 (EST)
I previously wrote[1], in part: > The Direction property (CSS2) allows only for 'rtl' and 'ltr' > <snip> [A]dd a 'ttb' (top-to-bottom) value, and a Secondary- > direction property indicating which way the lines should be > ordered. I apologize. I see now that an I18n WG Working Draft <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-i18n-format-19990726/> discusses this (though does not discuss boustrophedon (sic), which Mr. Woolley[2] mentions). On a different topic concerning that WD, I suggest text-decoration be used instead of font-emphasize[3]. That this new property can affect line-height is irrelevant; nothing forbids new values for text-decoration from affecting line-height. And I fail to understand the WD's rationale that "the emphasis style should be distinguished from the text-decoration which is another method to 'emphasize' text content"; if it means that font-emphasis-style "is another method to 'emphasize' text content" whereas text-decoration is not, then I differ: underlining is certainly used for emphasis. (I can't seem to set the Reply-to header in this idiotic e-mail client, but mean for replies to be sent to www-international.) Michael Hamm BA Math scl, PBK, NYU mhamm@gc.cuny.edu http://www.crosswinds.net/~msh210/ ---------- Notes: [1] Archived: <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2001Feb/0083.html>. [2] Archived: <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2001Feb/0086.html>. [3] Or perhaps vice versa (though not if one wants backward compatibility), but not both.
Received on Friday, 23 February 2001 15:14:14 UTC