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

Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 11:35:32 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbUa2C8_UKFSGvAjO=EcNkkjcFjpuRhqsJcpG+SceB3H7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:25 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2015-06-03 04:00 +0900, Koji Ishii wrote:
>> 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;
>
> CSS doesn't have properties where some of their values reset another
> property but some don't.  So are you proposing that writing-mode
> always become a shorthand that includes text-orientation?  (And, if
> so, is there now a longhand corresponding to the actual value in
> writing-mode?)

Ah, no. I meant to "move the value to writing-mode", so
"text-orientation: sideways-left" is gone in this proposal. Sorry for
not clarifying that in the original post. Otherwise we're not solving
issues.

So I think the correct wording would be:

```
which sets the block flow to left-to-right and the LTR inline flow to
bottom-to-top (or RTL inline flow to top-to-bottom.)

This produces equivalent rendering by setting the two properties in
the current spec:
  writing-mode: vertical-lr;
  text-orientation: sideways-left;
but with this value defined in this proposal, "text-orientation:
sideways-left" is removed instead.
```

I need better wording for the spec, but is the intention clear now?

/koji
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 02:36:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:54 UTC