- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:42:06 -0400
- To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 2015-09-17 06:51, Jonathan Kew a écrit : > The recently-updated draft[1] says: > > # Name: text-orientation > # Value: mixed | upright | sideways-right | sideways > # ... > # Computed value: specified value > > Given that 'sideways' and 'sideways-right' are defined to be > equivalent, could/should we change this such that 'sideways-right' > computes to 'sideways' (or possibly vice versa)? Then the UA can treat > this as a simple alias during parsing, and avoid the need to keep > track of the specified value just so that getComputedStyle() can > return it correctly. > > Which of 'sideways' or 'sideways-right' do we want to promote as the > "canonical" computed value, and which should be an alias? (My vote > goes to the simpler 'sideways', fwiw.) > > JK > > [1] > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#propdef-text-orientation I believe that 'sideways' should just be removed. Just my opinion. If, one day, 'sideways-left' is reintroduced, then we should also reintroduce 'sideways' like in the original intent of the spec, meaning : " 'sideways' value is equivalent to sideways-right in vertical-rl writing mode and equivalent to sideways-left in vertical-lr writing mode. " By the way, Example 8 in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#text-orientation no longer makes perfect sense now that sideways-left has been removed. Gérard
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2015 21:42:37 UTC