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

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

From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:01:56 +1100
Message-ID: <CAMdq69-2_6s0FPUYuHmL-dnSqUo_bu5xjYvRu4aipeWnYEyUFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@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>
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > I still think it is better to directly collapse to only three values:
> start,
> > end, and inter-character, instead of the pairs, unless you have strong
> use
> > cases to show it is necessary.
>
> I meant I'm good with only three values, but "over", "under", and
> "inter-character". Why do you think "start" and "end" works better
> than "over" and "under" here?


I think what fantasai meant was "[ over | under | inter-character ] || [
right | left ]", and what I meant was "start | end | inter-character". I
guess you probably meant "over | under | inter-character"? I'm not sure.
I'm fine with either your option (if I understand correctly here) or mine.
But I'm not fine with what I think fantasai meant.

I guess "start" and "end" should be probably better, because "over" and
"under" look like physical values, however we want them to be meaningful in
logical context, so that they work fine with vertical text.

- Xidorn
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 01:03:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:56 UTC