- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:53:48 -0800 (PST)
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai wrote: > > Rather than use 'auto' for SVG backwards compatibility, it might be > > nicer to define 'auto' as what is called 'rotate-normal' and make > > that the default. > > I don't think it's a good default, because 'rotate-normal' lays out > ideographic characters sideways. Ok, but that's not at all clear from the text. > > What exactly is the difference betwee 'vertical-right' and > > 'rotate-right'? The first applies to non-ideographic characters only, > > the second applies to all? > > rotate-* ends up laying out text exactly as if it were in a horizontal > page, except graphically rotated 90deg. > > vertical-right does the "right thing" for vertical scripts. The spec currently defines 'vertical-right' as: In vertical writing modes, grapheme clusters from scripts that do not have an intrinsic vertical orientation are rotated 90° clockwise from their standard orientation in horizontal text. When available, vertical glyph variants and vertical font metrics are used to set all punctuation and characters from any script that is not rotated. This value is typical for layout of primarily vertical-script text. This doesn't seem right for the vertical-lr case (e.g. Mongolian), for which the rotation would be counter-clockwise. If the intention is really to create a value which is "do the right default thing for vertical text" then I would again suggest 'auto' is a more natural name for what you're defining. The distinction between 'vertical-right' and 'rotate-right' is confusing. Cheers, John Daggett
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 03:54:23 UTC