- From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:37:22 -0800
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'Ambrose Li' <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
In China I see old Chinese text sometimes written horizontally in right to left order. I have not seen any vertical Chinese in left to right lines. We have a lot of text on door posts, etc. in vertical mode that is commonly seen. I too would be interested to see examples. Paul -----Original Message----- From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:17 AM To: 'Ambrose Li' Cc: www-style@w3.org Subject: tb-lr Korean etc. Ambrose, > Of Ambrose Li > Sent: 28 February 2008 01:26 > 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. Can you provide pointers to the examples? Do you think they would continue to do that if they had access to the CSS3 writing mode properties? Cheers, RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/blog/ http://rishida.net/ > -----Original Message----- > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Ambrose Li > Sent: 28 February 2008 01:26 > To: Andrei Polushin > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: [CSS3] Box Model Terminology > > > 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")? > > -- > 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 Tuesday, 4 March 2008 19:40:42 UTC