- From: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:26:26 -0500
- To: "Andrei Polushin" <polushin@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On 27/02/2008, Andrei Polushin <polushin@gmail.com> wrote: > > fantasai wrote: > > Andrei Polushin wrote: > > >> Each time one would use his own set of terms, most convenient > >> for his own culture, and the mapping is as follows: > >> > >> European Arabic, Hebrew Chinese, Japanese Mongolian > >> ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- ---------------- > >> logical-left semitic-right east-asian-bottom mongolian-bottom > >> logical-right semitic-left east-asian-top mongolian-top > >> logical-top semitic-top east-asian-left mongolian-right > >> logical-bottom semitic-bottom east-asian-right mongolian-left > > > I was incorrect here, it should be written as: > > European Arabic, Hebrew Chinese, Japanese XSL-FO equivalent > ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------ > logical-left semitic-right east-asian-top before > logical-right semitic-left east-asian-bottom after > logical-top semitic-top east-asian-right start > logical-bottom semitic-bottom east-asian-left end While I appreciate the reasoning of the proposal, I find this to be even more confusing than things are right now. If we need writing-directon-independing wording, how about using some form of "advance" ("inline direction") and "leading" ("block direction")? BTW, due to western influence, I have been seeing more and more left-to-right vertical text for some years already (first I saw Korean, then I saw more and more Chinese). It's only a matter of time you can't assume vertical CJK is right-to-left. -- cheers, -ambrose Yahoo and Gmail must die. Yes, I use them, but they still must die. PS: Don't trust everything you read in Wikipedia. (Very Important)
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 01:26:43 UTC