Re: [css3-text-layout] "design philosophy" or "basic idea" how vertical writing would work in CSS

On 06/28/2010 07:11 PM, Ishii Koji wrote:
> Thank you, fantasai. I think I finally understand what you are trying
> to do. And I completely agree that the plan will be one of the consistent
> resolution. Allow me to say thank you for your efforts to help me understand.
> Well, you may hate to hear this, I apologize in advance, but isn't it still easier
> to add just a single property that transforms the way left/right/top/bottom/width/height
> are interpreted?

Probably it would be easier, but perhaps not by as much as you think.
For example, as I mentioned, in Mongolian layout the top of the line and
the top of the paragraph do not coincide. What does 'vertical-align: top'
mean in that case? I think the box model definitions would still need an

I think the main benefit to the switch you propose is that we wouldn't need
to define a new set of properties.

I'll note that while it might make some things simpler, a switch like this
also makes other things more confusing. Suppose, for example, I am working
on a multi-lingual website. Does a 'logical' mode for my properties mean
that 'left' and 'right' switch places in Arabic? Do we really want this?
Perhaps for my margins, but what if I am positioning the corner graphics of
a box to the "top left" and "top right" of my box?

It also means that for anyone not using an ltr horizontal writing mode,
all directional keywords act wacky with respect to their standard
definitions. And a switch like this is not something that can be used
in a user agent's default style sheet to set, e.g. the default margins
on <ol>, which should be on the same side as the bullets.

Btw, I would suggest calling it 'directional-mode'-- 'ltrbwh' is a
little obscure. :)


Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 04:10:16 UTC