- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:11:25 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, 馬場孝夫 <baba@bpsinc.jp>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>, W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On 30/9/15 23:44, fantasai wrote: > On 09/19/2015 08:17 PM, 馬場孝夫 wrote: >> Sorry for late response, and thank you for clear explanation. >> >>> I am not strongly opposed either way. However, I think than >>> symmetry between sideways-left and sideways-right is overstated. >>> sideways right just affects glyph orientation, while sideways-left >>> also affects the baseline orientation and line progression direction. >>> >>> So I have a preference for something like sideways and sideways-reverse >>> over -left and -right. >> >> I've understood Florian's point, your opinion makes sense. >> >> >>> Option A: it prints "sideways" and "sideways-right" >>> Option B: it prints "sideways" and "sideways" >>> Option C: it prints "sideways-right" and "sideways-right" >> >> So now I think both B and C are fine if there is no compatibility >> problems. > > To close on this, the CSSWG resolved on B. This has now been > edited into the ED. > And just to confirm, it's now implemented this way for Firefox 44, along with support for the 'sideways-rl' and 'sideways-lr' values of 'writing-mode'. JK
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 11:11:56 UTC