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