- From: 馬場孝夫 <baba@bpsinc.jp>
- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:17:53 +0900
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>, W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
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. ---------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > >> On 19 Sep 2015, at 22:46, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 19/9/15 13:26, Koji Ishii wrote: >>> The original topic is just about serialization, used in >>> getComputedStyle() and a few other places. Jonathan might need to >>> resolve it now, and I need it too very soon. Can we simply straw poll on >>> the next conf call, resolve, and do other discussions after that? >> >> Yes, please -- I'm implementing this in gecko right now, so clarification on this would be really useful. >> >>> >>> <div id=a style="text-orientation:sideways"></div> >>> <div id=b style="text-orientation:sideways-right"></div> >>> <script> >>> console.log(getComputedStyle(a).style.textOrientation); >>> console.log(getComputedStyle(b).style.textOrientation); >>> </script> >>> >>> Option A: it prints "sideways" and "sideways-right" >>> Option B: it prints "sideways" and "sideways" >>> Option C: it prints "sideways-right" and "sideways-right" >>> >>> Current situation: >>> * Jonathan, Florian, and I prefer B. >>> * Takao prefers C. >>> * fantasai didn't show her preference IIUC but proposing a rename to >>> "sideways-lr". >>> >>>> I think I would like to investigate the backwards-compat impact >>>> of switching to 'text-orientation: sideways-rl' and dropping >>>> the other keywords, since that would be a little easier to type, >>>> but also clearer and more consistent with the corresponding >>>> writing-mode' keywords... what is your opinion on that, if it >>>> is feasible? >>> >>> I disagree. 'writing-mode' is about direction, so "l-to-r" and "r-to-l" >>> makes sense. 'text-orientation' is about orientation, so "right" makes >>> sense. >> >> And I agree with Koji here: I don't think 'sideways-rl' is good as a 'text-orientation' value. This property is distinct from 'writing-mode' and it's better not to confuse the values of the two. >> >> So my preference is still the simple 'sideways', with the alias 'sideways-right' supported for backward compatibility (option B above). >> > > For what it's worth, I agree as well, as Koji said. > > - Florian >
Received on Sunday, 20 September 2015 00:18:54 UTC