- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:51:52 +0100
- To: Hiroshi Sakakibara <sakakibara.hiroshi@bpsinc.jp>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 21/8/15 09:39, Hiroshi Sakakibara wrote: >> I really think we need more input from other implementers, specifically >> Apple, Microsoft and any other EPUB vendors who support already support >> vertical text. Murakami-san seems content with the proposed change. >> Other implementers, opinions? > > My company, BPS co. LTD., is developing an EPUB3 viewer, Cho-Tate-Gaki > (it means super vertiacl layout), based on Blink. As the name tells, > we did lots of modifications for Blink for beautiful Japanese > typesetting. > > In addition, more than 100 thousand of EPUBs are already made and set > to ebook companies' distributing servers. It means lots of > writing modes related properties are already used in Japan. (I'm not > sure the current situation in Taiwan and other contries.) > > My understanding is that the EPUB spec is referencing the newest CSS > writing modes' spec. > > I heard that it might not affect to currently distributed EPUBs if > 'sideways-rl/rl' are simply added to writing-mode property now. This is correct; if the new sideways-* values for writing-mode are added, this has no effect whatsoever on existing usage of the vertical-* values. Japanese users can ignore the new values, which are not aimed at Japanese typesetting needs. > (I'm > not sure but how about the effect to text-orientation property? > text-orientation is also distributed already to treat U+00A9 to rotate > 90 degrees) There is also no effect on existing usage of text-orientation:upright or text-orientation:sideways-right within writing-mode:vertical-rl content; this will continue to work. In theory, existing usage of text-orientation:sideways-left (or text-orientation:sideways within writing-mode:vertical-lr content) would be affected, but AFAIK nobody has yet implemented these options so there isn't any existing usage. JK > > �From e-book domain perspective, I want the spec to be stable. > > Can the above be opinion to consider the priority? > > --- skk
Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 08:52:22 UTC