If we use 'sideways' as the computed value for 'sideways-right', 'sideways' has to mean rotate 90° clockwise. I think this makes two problems in future: (1) We cannot use 'sideways' for auto-switching mechanism according to 'writing-mode' (like original intent of the spec). (2) Both 'sideways' and 'sideways-right' means rotate clockwise, while 'sideways-left' means counter-clockwise (as following list). It is asymmetric and looks weird. - sideways-right: computed to 'sideways' - sideways-left: rotate counter-clockwise - sideways: rotate clockwise ---------------------------------------------------- ビヨンド・パースペクティブ・ソリューションズ株式会社 〒160-0023 東京都新宿区西新宿6-20-7 コンシェリア西新宿TOWER'S WEST 2F Tel: 03-6279-4320 Fax: 03-6279-4450 http://www.bpsinc.jp 馬場 孝夫（Baba Takao） On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, 馬場孝夫 <baba@bpsinc.jp> wrote: >> >> Hi Jonathan, Gerard, fantasai. >> >> # This is my first time to sending www-style. Nice to e-meet you. >> # I'm Baba, a colleague of Hiroshi (skk@bpsinc.jp). >> >> I roughly agree to Gerard. >> >> In my opinion 'text-orientation: sideways-left' might be needed in the >> future, >> because of the following reason: >> >> Since an inline box which has a different 'writing-mode' property to its >> parent >> becomes inline-block, it is impossible to align original baseline between >> clockwise-rotated texts and counter-clockwise-rotated texts. Mostly this >> is not >> required because mixing them in a same line is rare, but is possibly >> needed in >> the future. So we propose to disuccuss it in future level. > > > I don't think we'd have any troubles if we make 'sideways' as the canonical > computed value, and in future we want to add 'sideways-left', so it doesn't > look relevant to me. What's the problem for you? > > /koji
Received on Friday, 18 September 2015 03:52:46 UTC