W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [css-writing-modes] new sideways-* values for writing-mode

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:13:20 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbVKHy=HUevKnpvmGd9fUnW8ki9_K4EYJ2VVXv7oY55Xtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:01 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 08/11/2015 03:36 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
>
>>
>> Regarding the 'sideways' value of text-orientation, this (AIUI) is the
>> same as the current draft's 'sideways-right', which is
>> already implemented in several browsers (with or without prefixes). As
>> such, would it be better to retain the 'sideways-right'
>> name, or perhaps to accept it as an alias of 'sideways', so as to avoid
>> breaking content that is already using that name?
>>
>
> Yes, if we go that route and there's existing content with it,
> we should certainly require an alias here. (It can compute to
> the new value name.)
>

Agreed.


> A firm decision on the new design, as well as any guidance
>> on what to do with 'text-orientation: sideways-right', would be
>> very welcome. Thanks!
>>
>
> If you can wait until the F2F, I think we'll have better ability
> to include people there--we'll have whiteboards and such, and
> jdaggett can call in when it's not 2am his time. :)
>
> In the meantime, your opinion on this matter would be appreciated.
> I think saying "everyone on the call was in agreement" is a bit
> optimistic: several people who spoke up were in agreement, but
> it's hard to tell what all the silent people thought.
>
> (We should also loop in the i18n folks.)


Note that I talked about this proposal happening in i18n conf call, so at
least people who attends calls are aware of this[1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/456

/koji
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 05:14:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 13 August 2015 05:14:10 UTC