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

Re: [css-ruby] collapse ruby-position values

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:00:16 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbUp14pUi8_Q6hzygm4ex6CKxMgzeU=MNQDCn0q0w5+hrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
I'm also good to allow just "over" and "under", and it looks like
fantasai was good as well 4 months ago. Let's see if she'd jump in,
and I'll make edits if not.


On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:42 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> wrote:
>> On 09/23/2014 09:44 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp
>>> <mailto:kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>> wrote:
>>>     > Since text can't be both horizontal and vertical WM at the same
>>> time, then what is the meaning of specifying both?
>>>     It allows having this property in the root of the document, or in the
>>> UA default stylesheet, using lang selector, and it’d
>>>     do the right thing regardless of the writing modes.
>>> ok, but let me ask a follow up question, would you expect to see use of
>>> the
>>> combinations "over left" or "under right"?
>> I've a vague recollection that "under right" was used for PRC Chinese.
>> Could be that's just for emphasis dots, though, whose syntax we wanted
>> to match:
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/css-text-decor-3/#text-emphasis-position-property
>> We can adjust the grammar to allow just "over" and "under" on their own,
>> if that's easier, but we are definitely are not using "before" and
>> "after".
> Do you have any use case of ruby annotation with the combination "over left"
> or "under right"? I don't see any relevant use case in our use cases
> document [1], and a handbook from Taiwan [2] doesn't show any use cases like
> that, either. Hence I wonder if there is really any use case for those
> combinations. If you do have use cases, I guess it's probably better to put
> it somewhere as a reference.
> In addition, even if there are use cases, I guess it is not common enough
> for us to have specific grammar for them. I think it is better to leave
> those uncommon cases with a slightly more complicated stylesheet, but make
> the common cases happy. Because at least, people have to use stylesheet to
> change the writing mode of a piece of text. They can simply change
> ruby-position in addition when they do that, if it is truly necessary.
> And at very least, I think we should make the grammar allow only one value.
> In addition, maybe we could also allow start and end, and let them be
> computed to the pairs according to writing mode. When I test my ruby code,
> it has been really annoying to have to always write a pair of values even
> when I only want one of them.
> - Xidorn
> [1]: http://www.w3.org/International/docs/ruby/
> [2]:
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ev8yh5nb9488o8n/AADssbd4gljy-P6jaw6-Z1lba/mandarin_zhuyinfuhou_handbook.pdf?dl=0
Received on Monday, 19 January 2015 16:00:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:50 UTC