- From: Michel Suignard <michelsu@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:46:09 -0700
- To: "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Fantasai, overall I think your conclusions are correct, even if I don't agree with all your arguments. Some of my issues: The'direction' property today (ie in horizontal flow as supported by CSS2) sets inline progression for block element (CSS2 says 'specifies the base writing direction of blocks') and MAY set directionality. However, typically it does not set character directionality (this is done through the bidi algorithm and the usage of the 'unicode-bidi' property). I read the determination of the inline progression as setting the starting edge of the line box. We could possibly say that 'direction' doesn't set inline-progression for vertical layout, but that would be terribly ackward. Your proposal (text-orientation-vertical/horizontal + glyph-orientation-vertical/horizontal) is comprehensive but fairly complex. I am still not convinced that these 2 concepts should not be merged. And I am not convinced that we need to support all possible combinations. I think we agree more or less on the behavior expressed by 'text-orientation-xxx: natural' and 'glyph-orientation-xx:auto' which are their initial values. It is interesting to note that for these values, the 'direction' property is w/o any doubt tightly correlated with the inline-progression. I would propose for the time being to remove glyph-orientation-xxx properties from the CSS3 text WD and not add the 'text-orientation-xxx' properties. And just have 'block-progression', 'direction' and 'writing-mode' (as a shorthand for the 2 other properties). I could myself have 'lived' with the current definition of 'glyph-orientation-xxx' even if there are some values that don't make much sense for some bidi situations (because of reordering or lackof). But I also agree that text-orientation is more elegant in that respect. We could always spend more time in refining the details of vertical layout but make progress on the bulk of the text module. Michel
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 21:46:17 UTC