- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:28:22 -0800
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 01:03, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > >> It's been proposed and was in earlier versions of CSS3 text. It has >> lower priority because there is no live language that would use a >> writing mode like that for normal writing. > > I see. Without knowing the implementation details, I naïvely think that > supporting the case of rotating Latin text layout 90 counter-clockwise > would have a small incremental implementation cost once > block-progression: rl; is already sunk cost. It gets complicated once you try to consider what happens to vertical scripts in such a layout mode. They can't very well be written upside-down. See Unicode Technical Note #22 for some discussion on the topic. Note that there's a difference between vertical text and rotated text. In some cases they look the same (pure Latin). In others, they don't (Chinese). ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 18:29:06 UTC