- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:34:17 -0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
On 12/15/2014 11:59 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com > <mailto:dholbert@mozilla.com>> wrote: [...] > In this case, the desired inter-property influence seems to be: > For any element with a computed "display" of > "ruby-text-container" *and* a computed "ruby-position" > of "inter-character", the UA must force the computed > "writing-mode" to be $SOME_VERTICAL_WRITING_MODE. > > > This complexity could easily be avoided if the spec says "if > ruby-position is inter-character, and writing-mode is not a vertical > mode, then treat ruby-position as if the value 'initial' were specified". > > There is no reason ruby position should be forcing writing mode. This suggestion (making "inter-character" only work if the writing-mode happens to be vertical) seems problematic for several reasons: (1) It will cause author confusion and provide broken behavior by default. As I understand it, "inter-character" is to be used with horizontal base text -- at least, that's the example in the spec -- so, unless the author knows to specify a vertical writing-mode specifically on the annotations, "inter-character" just won't work. (2) It seems like inter-character's validity could vary between sibling "ruby-text" boxes, which (depending on how your suggestion is interpreted) could mean the ruby-position would change back & forth within a given ruby-text-container. I'll clarify, because there are several boxes in play here: - "ruby-position: inter-character" applies to the ruby-text-container. - But the annotation text itself is inside of a "ruby-text" box, *inside* of that container. - SO: if there's no writing-mode-forcing, then each "ruby-text" box can specify its own "writing-mode" and make its text vertical/horizontal, which can make "inter-character" on its parent seem valid or invalid for that particular ruby-text box. (and this could vary between sibling text-boxes.)
Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 22:34:47 UTC