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

Re: [css-writing-modes] computed value for text-orientation: sideways or sideways-right

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:14:42 +0900
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>, W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1B9820BA-E509-4F72-9B1F-D258D15AF2CB@rivoal.net>
To: 馬場孝夫 <baba@bpsinc.jp>

> On 18 Sep 2015, at 12:52, 馬場孝夫 <baba@bpsinc.jp> wrote:
> 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).
This is true, but I don't think it matters, because the auto-switching mechanism
was only needed for the horizontal-script-used-as-a-vertical-caption, which is
now better served by using the two new writing modes.

> (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
sideways-right is not longer needed, except for compatibility with
legacy content. And I am not sure we actually have that much legacy
content specifying sideways-right unprefixed. I'd be in favor of dropping it
if we can.

And if we ever need to reintroduce the behavior of the sideways-left value,
which is far from certain, we can be creative on the naming then, and I
would not have an issue with that name being longer, since it is a less
frequently used value.

 - Florian

Received on Friday, 18 September 2015 05:15:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:57 UTC