- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 01:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
- To: MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Hakon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Shinyu Murakami wrote: > The fallback handling is very important. We want to access to the > documents (web or ebooks) styled as vertical writing even when we > cannot use UAs that support vertical writing. Sure, fallback behavior for any new property is important. But if fallback is the main strength of this proposal then there's probably a simpler way to have graceful fallback for older UAs. > UAs that supprt vertical writing must suport logical properties. The > advantages of logical properties for such UAs are obvious. They can > switch writing modes (horizontal/vertical) by user preference. It's > easy to write stylesheets suited for both writing modes using only > logical properties. I think it's *only* easy when the ideal stylesheet settings for horizontal and vertical text are swapped versions of each other, in other words the ideal margin-top and margin-left for horizontal text are the ideal margin-right and margin-top respectively for vertical text. If that's not the case, it's no longer easy, you still need to define these styles contextually (i.e. have margin/padding/border settings specific to a given writing mode). I think making this assumption is dubious, Japanese horizontal and vertical layout styles seem very distinct when you look at the details. And for layouts that mix horizontal and vertical text I think swapping is going to be more than a matter of swizzling margins and borders. Couldn't "user swapping" be thought of in terms of an alternate stylesheet choice? This seems far more robust than relying on changing writing-mode and expecting everything to "just work" (assuming fallback can be dealt with in other ways). > To decrease implementation costs for such UAs (i.e., the block-flow > is always tb), the *-before and the *-after can be simply aliases of > *-top and *-bottom. Hmmm, the more I think about it I'm puzzled by the way these logical and physical properties interact. The spec says in 5.2 "if the writing-mode of the element is lr-tb, the computed value of the ‘margin-before’ overrides the ‘margin-top’." Are the results different for the two rules below if no other style rules are defined? p { writing-mode: lr-tb; margin-top: 2em; } p { writing-mode: lr-tb; margin-before: initial; margin-top: 2em; } If the results are different, this seems very un-CSS-like to me. Regards, John Daggett
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 08:10:28 UTC