- From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:06:16 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 01:07:00 UTC
See comments below: Steve Zilles From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Adams Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:59 AM To: John Daggett Cc: www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: [css3-writing-modes] transcript of text orientation discussion On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:21 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com<mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com>> wrote: [jdaggett] Right, but I just don't see the need, bidi has nesting behavior does it not? I would expect that the resolution of text orientation should be nestable in a manner similar to bidi nesting. [stevez] And there's one final one, which is I don't think shaped scripts should ever be upright. Mongolian script is shaped and upright (vertical), if I understand Steve's comment correctly. One may also embed (rotated) Arabic script in Mongolian (and vice versa). [SZ] “upright” means “not rotated”. Mongolian can be done either vertically, TtoB or horizontally, LtoR, but these variants are rotated to keep the shaping. And, you already said that Arabic is rotated (i.e. not upright) in Mongolian, confirming my assertion.
Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 01:07:00 UTC