- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 03:27:01 +0900
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Done. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#rubypos /koji On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 01/20/2015 02:07 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com >> <mailto:kojiishi@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org >> <mailto:liam@w3.org>> wrote: >> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:54:08 +0900 >> > Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com <mailto:kojiishi@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> > Do over and under work equally well for horizontal and vertical >> text? >> >> Yes, it's defined in Writing Modes Level 3, 6.3. Line-relative >> Directions[1]. >> >> >> Great. Then I'm fine with "over | under | inter-character". > > > I'm okay with this. If we need to, we can expand the values in L2. > > ~fantasai >
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2015 18:27:32 UTC