Re: [css3-writing-modes] vertical orientation and UTR50

Koji Ishii wrote:

> > On the other hand, I am not entirely sure why it helps. If the
> > webkit implementors don't care, and then it doesn't matter what we
> > do. If they do care about matching what we plan to do, a
> > resolution saying "we will use UTR50 when ready, until then
> > implementations are encouraged do try and stay close to the
> > behavior advocated in UTR50's current drafts" should be enough.
> >
> > Or do we expect that authors will code to the spec, and complain
> > about webkit working differently, forcing it to change, rather
> > than code to the currently available behavior?
> And the resolution at Hamburg actually helped, although it may not
> make WD now. By that resolution, authors understood something more
> stable and usable is coming soon. Implementers understood it's
> something worth to spend time on. Access, a Japanese implementer,
> actually created a patch and is going to upstream to Readium, and is
> also seeking for a possibility to upstream WebKit too. I'm not sure
> if they can make it or not, but yes, that was what I wanted, and the
> resolution at CSS WG helped it to happen.

This issue actually has very little bearing on the problems with the
Webkit implementation which are much more fundamental than simply
which codepoints are oriented which way by default.  There are a
number of basic problems with the current Webkit implementation, ones
that I've reported [1] and which you, Koji, have commented on.  Not
centering upright Latin is a fairly fundamental problem.

Nor do authors *require* a solution to the question of proper
defaults, since they can always use the values of 'upright' and
'sideways' to manually specify the orientation they prefer.

John Daggett

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 03:24:44 UTC