- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:32:49 +1000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 26/07/2012 9:11 AM, fantasai wrote: > On 07/25/2012 03:39 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote: >> Now that both Webkit and Gecko have implementations of min-content, >> max-content, fill-available and fit-content for width (and >> neither for height), I propose we unprefix the keywords for width. >> >> Note: Gecko unfortunately implemented an older spec as -moz-available >> instead of -moz-fill-available, so unprefixing should >> also bring both Gecko and Webkit into alignment. >> >> Does anyone have any objections? > > Yes. The behavior of 'width' is that of the 'height' property in vertical > writing modes, so until that's also implemented and interoperable, I don't > think it's a good idea to remove the prefixes. In particular, behavior for > 'fill-available' has been requested to change in the logical height > dimension, > and that's not even specced yet. > > Note that while Gecko doesn't implement vertical text, Webkit does. > > ~fantasai WebKit does implement vertical writing mode but a test (Safari 5.1.7 and Chrome 20) with Kanji shows the glyphs are also rotated. The after side (baseline) is towards the logical left instead of the logical bottom. -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2012 05:33:23 UTC