- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:00:01 +0900
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I'd like to propose: writing-mode: sideways-left which is equivalent to setting the two properties: writing-mode: vertical-lr; text-orientation: sideways-left; When this value is specified, I prefer to make the used value of text-orientation to sideways-right, but I'm good not to if this is controversial. Although equivalent, this proposal has following benefits. 1. Resolves dbaron's open issue where logical directions change within a BFC[1]. 2. Resolves my concern of sideways-left being an inline property value at Sydney F2F[2]. IIUC jdagett expressed the same concern before. 3. This proposal is inline with fantasai saying "we could make it apply to blocks only" to resolve #2[2]. 3. Resolves the issue where a non-at-risk value (sideways) has a dependency on an at-risk value. 4. Eliminates a combination "vertical-rl + sideways-left" that has no use cases and thus helps testing. For authors, this definition is almost equivalent. Current: html { text-orientation: sideways; } .clockwise { writing-mode: vertical-rl; } .counterclockwise { writing-mode: vertical-lr; } This proposal: html { text-orientation: sideways-right; } .clockwise { writing-mode: vertical-rl; } .counterclockwise { writing-mode: sideways-left; } The only downside I can think of is that we found a printed material where RTL text within CJK vertical flow was rotated. This is still possible by inline-block with writing-mode: sideways-left or transform: rotate(180deg), but we can no longer wrap lines within such rotated text. This is considered to be very rare, and I'm not aware of any such digital text yet. I think this limitation is acceptable when considered the benefits. Thoughts? Any other downsides I missed? [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Apr/0026.html [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0188.html /koji
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 19:00:30 UTC