- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:57:51 -0700
- To: mholmes@uvic.ca
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 10/09/2013 11:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Martin Holmes <mholmes@uvic.ca> wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> The current draft of the CSS Writing Modes specification states: >> >> "Inherently bottom-to-top scripts are not handled in this version. See >> [UTN22] for an explanation of relevant issues." >> >> However, I can't find in UTN 22 any justification for the omission of >> bottom-to-top scripts; UTN 22 in fact includes: >> >> ltr-btt >> Left to right directionality in horizontal text; Bottom to top >> directionality in vertical text. (Bi-orientational script) >> Example: Ogham. >> >> Other bottom-to-top scripts exist (such as Ancient Berber). >> >> I'm therefore a little puzzled by the decision to exclude bottom-to-top from >> CSS Writing Modes. Is it simply because the range of use-cases is so narrow, >> so the implementation burden placed on user-agent developers was not felt to >> be justifiable? > > You got it in one. No, that is not the reason. The reason is that bottom-to-top scripts are also left-to-right scripts. However, bottom-to-top in mixed orientation modes is the *opposite* direction of other LTR scripts (such as Chinese). Which puts two different LTR scripts going in opposite directions on the same line. As UTN22 explains, this requires essentially treating the bottom-to-top script as RTL to get implicit reordering correct and doing some fancy orientation work to get the glyphs facing the right way. The way to handle bottom-to-top scripts in CSS3 is to assign them 'text-orientation: sideways-left'. This deals with all those issues at a layout and markup level rather than involving a modified bidi algorithm. (I suppose that sentence should probably be modified to say that they aren't handled in any *automatic* way in 'mixed' orientation but they can be handled by explicitly assigning the correct orientation.) Let me know if that makes sense. If not, I'll try to explain it better. :) ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 09:58:25 UTC