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

Re: [css-writing-modes] text-orientation: sideways-left

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 22:27:49 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbUTaNEAP-uLqn7EEFV2k-czJAbd46j5de_OHFJiH+hEzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>, smontagu@smontagu.org, GĂ©rard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
I'm normally ok with that. But this time for this value, I prefer to
defer to Level 4. That should have been clear enough even with the
current text, but it was misread. I don't think adding notes helps

To me, the benefits of having this value with "at risk" is very low,
and the risks overweigh much higher.

Maybe you and I have different views on how much possible this value
can be implemented in reasonable time frame, which determines the
value of keeping. We could ask WG if you think that's the case.


On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:11 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 01/28/2015 08:52 AM, Koji Ishii wrote:
>> The problem of leaving it as at-risk is that another shorter value,
>> "sideways", has a dependency on the at-risk value, and thus is a
>> possible source of an interoperability problem.
>> I prefer deferring earlier than later. Doing so saves test costs as well.
> Then we mark both at-risk together, and clarify that
> implementers are only allowed to implement 'sideways'
> if they implement it according to the actual definition
> in the spec and not the one in their head. :)
> ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 13:28:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC