[css3-writing-modes] recent edits

>From the CSS WG telcon IRC logs this week:

> szilles: Let's talk about Writing Modes first. I didn't see an updated draft from Elika, but I think there was an agreement from the WG that everything minus logical properties was acceptable for a fpwd, so we'd like to get that going if there's no objection.
> dbaron: You mean all of section 7 in the spec?
> szilles: Yes.
> dbaron: That seems reasonable to me, but I'd like to give jdaggett a chance to raise something.
> dbaron: I'd be fine with a resolution if we give jdaggett a chance to reject.
> plinss_: I think jdaggett was there when we resolved, we just deferred the actual resolution so we could see the edits that were being done.
> dbaron: Sounds fine.
> glazou: So do we wait for the edits or resolve now?
> RESOLVED: Publish Writing Modes, minus chapter 7 over logical properties, subject to potential objections from jdaggett.

There was no formal resolution at the F2F.  I think there are still
several things that need to be resolved before publishing a working
draft of the Writing Modes spec:

* We resolved to remove 'horizontal-bt' as a value for writing-mode

* Section 7 still contains wording that implies vague things about the "logicalness" of width/height.

In 7.1:

> The height properties (‘height’, ‘min-height’, and ‘max-height’)
> refer to the physical height, and the width properties (‘width’,
> ‘min-width’, and ‘max-width’) refer to the physical width. However,
> the rules used to calculate the height and width are logical: the
> height calculation rules in [CSS21] are used for the logical height
> (which could be either the physical height or physical width).
> Likewise the width calculation rules in [CSS21] are used for the
> logical width.
> 
> As a corollary, percentages on the margin and padding properties,
> which are calculated with respect to the containing block width
> regardless of their dimension, are calculated with respect to the
> logical width of the containing block. 

I'm not entirely clear what 7.2.2 implies about existing properties
that have directional dependencies.  So 'left' and 'right' for
text-align will effectively map to start and end?  Would it be better
to add explicit 'start' and 'end' values?  Ditto for float/clear.  I
also think vertical-align needs to be flushed out more explicitly.

Sections 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 seem like they should be removed for now.

Maybe the two "examples" V and VI would be better as diagrams in the
section 2?

Cheers, 

John Daggett

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:34:59 UTC