- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:15:02 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/26/2015 08:03 AM, Koji Ishii wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote: > > [snip] > However, the spec says 'bottom' must be treated as 'block-start'. > This may cause problem. > It would be better 'bottom' treated as block-end? > > > This was done intentionally as error-handling, as Tab explains: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0072.html > See also below... > > I don't think this is good to change. > > > What about leaving it undefined? While I understand what you and Tab want, with the current definition, "bottom" is "block-end > if horizontal, or block-start if vertical" if we look from the logical implementation. Having such a special code path doesn't > seem to worth the goal. > > Just checked IE, Blink, and WebKit, IE and Blink/WebKit already disagree. Gecko should also disagree given its side caption > support. I think "undefined" is the appropriate definition in such case. > > Not interoperable among all major browsers should be good enough to prevent authors from using it, so I think your goal is > still secured. I don't think it makes sense to have undefined behavior for something so simple. Either you support side-captions, and you handle it that way, or you don't, and you treat it as block-start. It's not hard. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 07:15:36 UTC