- From: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:26:26 -0500
- To: "Andrei Polushin" <polushin@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On 27/02/2008, Andrei Polushin <polushin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> fantasai wrote:
> > Andrei Polushin wrote:
>
> >> Each time one would use his own set of terms, most convenient
> >> for his own culture, and the mapping is as follows:
> >>
> >> European Arabic, Hebrew Chinese, Japanese Mongolian
> >> ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- ----------------
> >> logical-left semitic-right east-asian-bottom mongolian-bottom
> >> logical-right semitic-left east-asian-top mongolian-top
> >> logical-top semitic-top east-asian-left mongolian-right
> >> logical-bottom semitic-bottom east-asian-right mongolian-left
>
>
> I was incorrect here, it should be written as:
>
> European Arabic, Hebrew Chinese, Japanese XSL-FO equivalent
> ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------
> logical-left semitic-right east-asian-top before
> logical-right semitic-left east-asian-bottom after
> logical-top semitic-top east-asian-right start
> logical-bottom semitic-bottom east-asian-left end
While I appreciate the reasoning of the proposal, I find this to be
even more confusing than things are right now.
If we need writing-directon-independing wording, how about using some
form of "advance" ("inline direction") and "leading" ("block
direction")?
BTW, due to western influence, I have been seeing more and more
left-to-right vertical text for some years already (first I saw
Korean, then I saw more and more Chinese). It's only a matter of time
you can't assume vertical CJK is right-to-left.
--
cheers,
-ambrose
Yahoo and Gmail must die. Yes, I use them, but they still must die.
PS: Don't trust everything you read in Wikipedia. (Very Important)
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 01:26:43 UTC