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

Re: [css-ruby][css-writing-modes] The writing-mode property on ruby internal boxes

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 19:15:21 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbW=3neDnYE6cn_DheGJhQdZ4++5Kpar5vJqG-6GqukpZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it makes sense in most cases for ruby internal boxes to
>>> have different writing-mode with their parent. AFAICS, the only exception
>>> is inter-character ruby.
>>>
>>> I propose:
>>>
>>> In CSS Writing Mode spec, add ruby base container, ruby base, and ruby
>>> text to the exception list, so that they won't be the target of
>>> writing-mode property.
>>>
>>> In CSS Ruby spec, make ruby-position always forces the writing-mode of
>>> the ruby text container. When ruby-position is over or under, the
>>> writing-mode of the ruby text container is computed to the same value as
>>> its parent.
>>>
>>
>> I'm fine with this proposal. Two confirmation:
>> 1. I'm not sure how much we'd see similar examples, but since the ruby
>> spec came later, wouldn't it be enough to write it in the ruby spec?
>>
>
> I'm not sure about this. If the writing modes spec is more stable than the
> ruby spec, I guess it is probably better to only have it in the ruby spec.
> But I have no idea how this could be specified in a different spec than the
> one which defines the property. Anyway, I'm not familiar with editorial
> things like this.
>

Me neither ;-( Writing Modes is CR, so changes need to go WG. Either way,
it's probably better to ask WG.

2. When you say "forces", are you suggesting to change the computed values
>> or effective values?
>>
>
> The computed values, same as what the current spec does on ruby-position:
> inter-character. I don't think it makes sense to have different value for
> computed one and effective one here.
>

inter-character wants to force a different value than parent's to its
descendants, but this case you want to ignore, no?

The writing-mode property already ignores certain elements[1]:

| Applies to: All elements except table row groups, table column groups,
table rows, and table columns

so I guess these are more similar to table rows etc. than to
inter-character.

Now I'm not sure, when the spec says "Applies to" only certain elements,
whether it's computed values, used values, or effective values, but since
writing-mode values from tables inherits to table cells, I guess it's used
value.

Do you see problems if they're handled in the same way as "Applies to",
whichever it is?

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/#propdef-writing-mode

/koji
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 10:16:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:18 UTC