Reading through Koji and Florian's messages, they appear to be agreeing with fantasai's proposed revision: > Thinking about this some more, though, I think what we can do > is move *both* orientations into the writing-mode, like this: > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-rl | sideways-lr; > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) > > This preserves symmetry, and actually makes it even easier for > horizontal-script authors to get the two most common behaviors. > They no longer need to use 'text-orientation' unless they want, > specifically, upright text. So we have these cases then: This is super confusing for authors I think. You're effectively making 'writing-mode' a pseudo-shorthand because it will need to override 'text-orientation' values, but only sometimes (i.e. the sideways-xxx cases). You're introducing all sorts of odd combinations: writing-mode: sideways-rl; text-orientation: mixed; /* it's not really mixed anymore? */ writing-mode: sideways-lr; text-orientation: upright; /* one of the values has to take precedence */ The most common use case for vertical text is CJK authoring. For that authors really only need to use 'writing-mode', since the default value of text-orientation will work most of the time: /* text-orientation defaults to mixed so doesn't need to be set */ writing-mode: vertical-rl; Only when overriding the default orientation does a CJK author need to worry about setting 'text-orientation' explicitly. I feel strongly that the complexity of other use cases, vertical captions, vertical RTL or Ogham should be handled by 'text-orientation' values. I also think dealing with these use cases should be the subject of a next-level spec, not this one. We need to achieve simple interop for the common CJK case first. Regards, John DaggettReceived on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 06:48:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:55 UTC