- From: Shinyu Murakami <murakami@vivliostyle.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 04:45:35 +0900
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I also think this discussion misses 'writing-mode'. I wrote: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Feb/0268.html > Unfortunately, I found a bunch of tutorial web pages and books about how to make vertial text Web/EPUB3, teaching 'body { writing-mode: vertical-rl; }' relying on current browser's behavior, see: ... > So I think #1 is better than #3. #1..#3 was: > 1) require 'direction' propagation from body to html, fix browsers > 2) forbid 'direction' propagation from body to html, fix browsers > 3) require dir=rtl propagation from body to html, fix browsers #1 should be corrected to: 1) require 'direction' and 'writing-mode' propagation from body to html, fix the spec -- Shinyu Murakami (ζδΈ ηι) CEO & Founder, Vivliostyle Inc. http://vivliostyle.com murakami@vivliostyle.com Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote on 2015-03-18 15:30:15 > I found a discussion in Sydney minutes[1], and found that the whole > discussion misses writing-mode. > > > could propagate from the HTML attribute on the > > body, but not propagate CSS 'direction' > > It doesn't work for writing-mode unfortunately. > > I'm ok to spec and change the behavior when different values are set > on html and body, that's rare at least for writing-mode, but when set > to only one of them, I'd like it to be honored. Either one is quite > common, and I do not see interoperability issues when set to either, > at least for writing-mode. > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0188.html > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > > Do we know how exactly we are not interoperable? As you said before, > > IE, Safari, Chrome propagates from body to HTML, right? I don't know > > how to test propagation for direction, so can't test Firefox without > > writing-mode support. > > > > Shouldn't we try to understand better how it's not interoperable, and > > try to fix only where needed? > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:26:33 +0100, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Is it only me, I'm lost for what good thing we're doing this > >>> discussion. I've never heard of single complaints from users nor > >>> authors not to propagate from body. > >>> > >>> I understand sometimes we need to sacrifice web-compat and thus users > >>> and authors for bigger benefits, but I do not see single benefits in > >>> this case. Can someone please explain? > >> > >> > >> The status quo is not interoperable, because 'direction' affects so many > >> different things in CSS. If the <body> special-case was dealt with in HTML, > >> it would be more isolated in implementations, and so everything in CSS would > >> get the desired result. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Simon Pieters > >> Opera Software
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2015 19:46:09 UTC