- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:33:52 +0900
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Sorry that my voice this time was too small, but it looks like it was taken as if the implementation complexity was the only reason. I prefer this from authors perspective too. When you want to rotate clock-wise, authors do: writing-mode: vertical-rl; and most authors do not bother to set text-orientation at all. I do like to recommend to set "text-orientation: sideways-right" to avoid surprises, but most responses I get is that they don't want to. Now with the current spec, if you want to rotate counter-clock-wise, authors do: writing-mode: vertical-lr; text-orientation: sideways; So these two are not symmetric to authors. This looks more consistent for authors to me: writing-mode: sideways-left; BTW, I'm open for the naming if that's the concern. /koji On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:54 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >> >> I still don't follow. >> >> With your proposal: >> (1) what values does 'writing-mode' take? >> (2) what values does 'text-orientation' take? > > Sorry for very unclear proposal...here's the updated syntax by this proposal: > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-left > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways-right > > /koji
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 17:34:20 UTC