Re: [css3-text-layout] Towards better support of CJK user requirements (was New editor's draft - margin-before/after/start/end etc)

> 
> There is no consensus in the CSS WG to add the proposed 30 new
> properties. 

It was agreed to incorporate them into the next draft. Then, David Hyatt
and Boris Zbarsky explained their implementations of the 30 new properties.  
Their implementations are very simple and do not appear to have any problems. 
Your concen about implementing cascading and inheriting of more
properties is no longer an issue.  Any new argument ?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010May/0570.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010May/0572.html


> In 2.5, we find this requirement:
> 
>   Even when the principal text direction is overridden, users will
>   expect that the viewer provides reasonable layout using the
>   stylesheets provided by the publisher. It should be possible to
>   provide stylesheets for both principal text directions. 

Although this sentence is the highlight of the issue, it is not good
enough to read this subsection only.  To correctly interpret the 
phrase "even when the principal text direction is overridden", 
you have to read the base document as well as the minimal 
requirement document.

http://www.jepa.or.jp/press_release/reqEPUBJ.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/

First, do you understand that vertical writing documents often 
contain horizontal writing, and vice versa?  Such mixture of 
horizontal and vertical writing happen even when everything 
is written in the Japanese language.

Second, do you understand that the same document can be viewed 
using horizontal writing and vertical writing?  In particular, 
reading systems often allow users to select principal text 
direction (See http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/ for the definition 
of this term) or force the horizontal writing direction always.  What is
needed is relativity based on what users choose rather than 
relativity based on what is specified within documents or stylesheets.

> To me, it seems that both the proposed alternatives fulfill this
> requirement. In Alt 1, which relies on language codes, one can write:
> 
>   :lang(ja) { ... }
>   :lang(en) { ... }

This certainly fails because different Japanese paragarphs within 
a single document have different writing directions.

> In Alt 2, which introduces new pseduo-classes, one can write:
> 
>   :rtl { ... }
>   :ltr { ... }
>   :ttb { ... }

In my understanding of the past discussions about pseudo classes, 
they are based on what is specified within documents.  Thus, 
it is not good enough.

Cheers,
Makoto

Received on Saturday, 29 May 2010 23:51:27 UTC