- From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 01:14:46 -0500
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: Eric Muller <emuller@adobe.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
2012/3/2 Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>: >> From: Ambrose LI [mailto:ambrose.li@gmail.com] >> >> No, I don't think he said make it UA dependent. He said vertical >> writing in Latin text should be treated as tate-chu-yoko partly >> because UA considerations support this behaviour. > > Oh, sorry, probably my English skill problem. He said the > use case difference is marginal and wanted to "give room for > implementations," which I understood UA dependent. > > If the use case difference is marginal, I do not see a good reason > for WebKit Mac to change the already implemented behavior. Oh, sorry, I missed that part. I guess he did say UA dependent then, for the specific use case of text-orientation:upright plus fonts that do not have vertical metrics. Please ignore my previous comment. I’m not sure if the use case for text-orientation:upright and fonts that do not have vertical metrics is really “marginal” though. I doubt most Chinese fonts have proper vertical metrics. > I also wonder how good "always use 1em height" is for Latin upright > text. I suppose this depends on what we are using this for and what we are expecting. The em is pretty much an arbitrary unit in Latin fonts. Usually it should look reasonable, but in some fonts (especially calligraphic fonts) there might be problems. That said, the chance of setting vertical text with these fonts is, I suppose, probably fairly small. > > > Regards, > Koji -- cheers, -ambrose <http://gniw.ca>
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 06:15:13 UTC