- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:57:08 -0800
- To: Andrei Polushin <polushin@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Andrei Polushin wrote: > > > Directions > > ---------- > > > > n/a (refer to 'direction' property) inline direction > > n/a (refer to 'direction' property) block direction > > Not so good: while it became a writing-mode-independent, it's still a > layout-algorithm-dependent: now it is defined in terms of flow layout. > > It might be better to use "logical width/height direction", or simply > "width/height direction", because the direction of physical width/height > always remains constant. These two terms are *about* how the flow layout works, and they're vectors not sizes. > > > Sides (from LTR reference) > > -------------------------- > > > > top before > > left start > > right end > > bottom after > > Did you consider "logical-top" etc. instead of "before" etc.? > > Those before/after/start/end is really inconvenient for authors, and > probably for Japanese authors too. I would suggest reusing the terms > from both worlds instead of introducing unusual terminology: > > top logical-top japanese-left > left logical-left japanese-bottom > right logical-right japanese-top > bottom logical-bottom japanese-right That would make left == right in RTL languages, something we want to avoid. Also, the 'start/end' terms are already being used; we can't change those. > In this case, logical-top and japanese-left are full synonyms and can be > used interchangeably throughout the specifications. Absolutely not. First of all, the direction mapping used for Japanese is also used in traditional Chinese, secondly it's not the only direction mapping in vertical text: a left-right flip of the Japanese diagram will give you layouts typically used in Mongolian, and a left-right flip of the English diagram will give you layouts typically used in Arabic. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 18:57:05 UTC