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

Re: [css-writing-modes] the caption-side keywords

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:19:20 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbUm94C9BM1tqkSOYdUY=HzmxLceBtyPtj4nHAFExysvSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:15 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > "Not hard" can't justify additional code that doesn't seem to help
> authors
> > nor users.
>
> What additional code do you think there is?  The switch is at the UA
> level, not a page level or something like that - if the UA doesn't
> support side captions, its code says "top/bottom means block-start in
> vertical wm".  Otherwise, its code says "top/bottom means top/bottom
> in vertical wm".  You don't distinguish the cases inside of a single
> UA, you just write your code to do one or the other.
>
> ~TJ
>

If you think it'll be done, marking at risk is no cost, right? Gecko
already passed the tests[1], so one more implementer doing the work will
secure the section.

I just don't think this section is important enough to block the whole spec
moving forward.

[1]
http://test.csswg.org/harness/results/css-writing-modes-3_dev/grouped/section/7.7/

/koji
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 12:20:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 August 2015 12:20:11 UTC