- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:31:13 -0500
- To: Elika Etemad <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Koji, Elika, 1- alt text " The content of replaced elements do not rotate due to the writing mode: images, for example, remain upright. However replaced content involving text (such as MathML content or form elements) should match the replaced element’s writing mode and line orientation if the UA supports such a vertical writing mode for the replaced content. " http://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/#writing-mode http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/#block-flow I see no normative information regarding the rendering of alt text of images inside a vertical writing-mode. Should I assume that alt text should be upright, sideways-right, etc.. when the block inside which the image is has also a correspondent text-orientation declaration? Eg http://test.csswg.org/suites/css-writing-modes-3_dev/nightly-unstable/html/replaced-content-image-002.htm and that test does not require a "should" flag. 2- input text, textarea " The content of replaced elements do not rotate due to the writing mode: images, for example, remain upright. However replaced content involving text (such as MathML content or form elements) should match the replaced element’s writing mode and line orientation if the UA supports such a vertical writing mode for the replaced content. " http://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/#writing-mode http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/#block-flow Here, there is a "should". I wonder why it is not a "must" or a "UA are required to" kind of formulation. The Example 4 (form controls inside a block with vertical-rl writing mode) that follows is not suggesting that this is just recommended and not required. Gérard
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 19:31:46 UTC