- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:24:54 -0700
- To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Jun 4, 2010, at 6:18 AM, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
> Second, I think :rtl and :ttb are just too different. The former is
> based on the @dir attribute, while the latter is not. They should
> be separated.
Ever since you pointed out (to me) that basing things on just the 'dir' attribute would not be enough, because @dir does not include 'ttb', I believe the conversation of pseduo-selectors has been based on either:
1. @dir would be changed to include 'ttb', or...
2. :rtl and :ttb (or ::rtl and ::ttb) would be based on anything that changed writing mode, including unicode characters & equivalent HTML entities, computed value of 'writing-mode' property, etc.
I think #2 is the best choice. #1 has the problems you pointed out (style vs. structure), plus there is the fact that HTML is not the only markup language that CSS is supposed to work with. I prefer these as pseudo-classes (not pseudo-elements), that would be applied to any element that had a primary writing mode, however that mode was achieved (unmarked ranges of text do not typically need padding, margin, etc.). The UA knows what direction it is drawing it's text (how could it not), so this should not be a problem. You would just need to outlaw (or otherwise deal with) this sort of thing:
:ttb { block-flow:tb; }
:rl { direction:ltr; }
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 16:25:31 UTC