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: 馬場孝夫 <baba@bpsinc.jp>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:17:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAWjb-eAqFvRA-Yh4UQp9Sb+L2J1haga3v03LpP-XcLZ8=Ad_Q@mail.gmail.com>
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

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