- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 08:01:53 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I remember we discussed this, but I can't remember why we didn't like 'right right'. Was that because it could be misleading when second half was omitted? One concern for 'inter-character' and 'inter-base' is that it isn't directional and therefore it could point to either left or right. How about 'inter-right'? -----Original Message----- From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of fantasai Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 6:55 AM To: www-style@w3.org Subject: [css3-ruby] ruby-position A couple of developments since the last time we discussed the syntax on this: 1. The CSSWG discussed the name of the 'bopomofo'/'right' value at the last F2F, and someone suggested 'inter-character' as an alternative. (I suggest correcting that to 'inter-base', since ruby bases can have more than one character.) 2. In discussions around the similarly-functioning 'text-emphasis-position', we came up with text-emphasis-position: [above|below] && [left|right] i.e. two keywords are specified in the value, one which takes effect in horizontal typographic modes, the other of which takes effect in vertical typographic modes. We could use the same structure for 'ruby-position', which would give us ruby-position: [ above | below | inter-base ] && [ left | right ] e.g. ruby-position: inter-base right; /* Traditional Chinese with bopomofo */ ruby-position: above right; /* PRC Chinese */ ruby-position: below right; /* Japanese */ We could even assume 'right' if the second half was dropped, since most ruby is placed on the right in vertical text. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 12:02:07 UTC