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

Re: [css-writing-modes][CSS21] propagation of 'direction' from <body>

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>
Message-Id: <20150323044531.A7C6.3B6C55AB@vivliostyle.com>
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 (ζ‘δΈŠ ηœŸι›„)
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:30 UTC