- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:22:08 -0400
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Erik Dahlström <erik@xn--dahlstrm-t4a.net>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAFDDJ7wDoBWKQZ1qHDeij_Kk=VEkdd67cmDDL8QX1zr68hB-xA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for the outline of the specific outstanding issues, Koji, I will be on the call next week, and between now and then I will look into the issues and test cases you and fantasai have brought up. Quite frankly, existing implementations of the SVG vertical writing spec are so inconsistent and/or incomplete, and the spec itself is so vague in places, that I have no problem setting an interpretation based on consistency with the new spec. (Maybe implementers will disagree!) But either way, it's good to then have a clear list of which previously undefined behaviors we are now defining, and where existing implementations need to change. Amelia On 2 October 2015 at 04:20, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > Dirk and Doug, > > In addition to what Doug said, a bit more clarification is appreciated. > The clarification is blocking the spec to go CR, and two implementers > appreciate the clarification for their work doing right now; Jonathan is > working on it right now for Gecko, and I plan to do it next week for Blink. > > fantasai might explain this better in the conf call, but here's a summary. > > 1. The spec defines "treat as" map[1] between CSS and SVG values. Does > that mean values in this table are completely equivalent, or does some of > them have different semantics and the map indicates super/subset > relationships? If equivalent, it means that "lr" and "rl" for instance > behaves exactly the same. > > 2. If equivalent, can we pick one of the equivalent values as the > canonical value? This will affect CSS serialization, which is used by > getComputedValue and a few other places; whenever you parse CSS but then > later want to stringfy, serialization kicks in. > > 3. If not equivalent, which value is not equivalent, and how is it > different? > > I can read from SVG specs that writing-mode lr/rl sets "the initial > inline-progression-direction" and direction ltr/rtl sets "the base writing > direction", but I couldn't find what "the initial > inline-progression-direction" is from the spec. > > If these two terminologies actually are the same thing, and "writing-mode > lr/rl sets the initial inline-progression-direction" is not a valid > definition, these values can be equivalent. Blink does so, and from the > tests, other browsers seem to be doing so too. > > Given that, Jonathan and I prefer these values are equivalent, and pick > the current CSS values as canonical. We appreciate SVG WG thoughts and > resolution on this. > > [1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#svg-writing-mode-css > > /koji > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > >> Hi, Dirk– >> >> Fantasai wrote up the results from the discussion and wants the SVG WG to >> confirm that it matches what was agreed. >> >> Regards– >> –Doug >> >> >> On 10/2/15 12:14 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: >> >>> >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, Dirk, Amelia, Cameron– >>>> >>>> We decided that we need (at least some of) you on the telcon to >>>> really deal with this issue and help move the CSS Writing Modes 3 >>>> spec to CR. >>>> >>>> Are you available to be on the telcon next week? >>>> >>> >>> I wonder what the issue is. I thought we resolved the last open >>> issues at the FX TF meeting in Paris a couple of weeks ago? fantasai >>> and Cameron were both it the meeting and overruled me :D. I myself >>> will not be able to join. >>> >>> Greetings, Dirk >>> >>> >>>> Tav is going to be reviewing the spec in depth, and you can >>>> coordinate with him to provide feedback, if you can't be on the >>>> telcon. >>>> >>>> Thanks– –Doug >>>> >>>> On 9/30/15 9:58 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, Erik– >>>>> >>>>> Can we please add the CSS Writing Modes 3 spec review to the >>>>> agenda? Fantasai says she needs our feedback on 2 issues (listed >>>>> below), and she's available to attend the telcon tomorrow to >>>>> explain the issue. >>>>> >>>>> (Fantasai, telcon details below in Erik's original agenda >>>>> email.) >>>>> >>>>> [[ I'm blocked on the SVGWG here: >>>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/issues-cr-2014 >>>>> >>>>> Two issues require SVGWG review >>>>> >>>>> first one is >>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Sep/0016.html >>>>> >>>>> That's the one that needs review of spec wording >>>>> >>>>> second issue is this >>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Sep/0017.html >>>>> >>>>> The question on hand is whether we can fold 'writing-mode: rl' >>>>> and 'writing-mode: lr' together >>>>> >>>>> From a CSS perspective, they're the same >>>>> >>>>> The different values don't affect anything in the CSS model >>>>> >>>>> They're both horizontal writing modes, and the rl vs. lr doesn't >>>>> affect bidi >>>>> >>>>> But the SVG spec says they affect the "inline progression >>>>> direction" and I can't figure out what that means or should have >>>>> an effect on >>>>> >>>>> But it's quite clear that it doesn't affect reordering! >>>>> >>>>> There's a test file here >>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Sep/att-0027/test.svg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> which does very interesting things in Presto >> >>> >>>>> but otherwise renders the two values identically in Blink and >>>>> InkScape >>>>> >>>>> So, yeah, have fun with that? >>>>> >>>>> maybe someone in the group knows what the SVG spec was trying to >>>>> say, and whether or not it was important ]] >>>>> >>>>> Regards– –Doug >>>>> >>>>> On 9/30/15 4:46 PM, Erik Dahlström wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Please find the agenda for this week’s telcon below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Time: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=1&year=2015&hour=20&min=30&sec=0&p1=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: +1-617-324-0000 (access code: 649 040 824) >> >>> IRC for minutes/discussion: #svg on irc.w3.org, port 6665 >>>>>> Agenda requests: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Agenda >>>>>> WebEx logistics: https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/WebEx >>>>>> >>>>>> Agenda: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Path stroking for paths that end with tight curves (Tav) >>>>>> http://tavmjong.free.fr/blog/?p=1257 >>>>>> >>>>>> * Declarative animation and conformance >>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/23 >>>>>> >>>>>> * SVG 2 chapter progress >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 12:22:41 UTC