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

[css-writing-modes-3] Writing-mode of alt text and replaced content of textarea, input type="text"

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>
Message-ID: <fdcb0bdc104e62ee2904eb60198dd06e@gtalbot.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:29 UTC