Brief   Full   Jump  

Close
Default
style
Bigger
text
Higher
contrast
Black
serif
Oldest
on top
Newest
on top
d
?
Styles

[css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left

41 messages.

[css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:00:01 +0900

www-style > June 2015 > 0040.html

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 19:00:30 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

I'd like to propose: writing-mode: sideways-left which is equivalent to setting the two properties: writing-mode: vertical-lr; text-orientation: sideways-left; When this value is specified, I prefer to make the used value of text-orientation to sideways-right, but I'm good not to if this is controversial. Although equivalent, this proposal has following benefits. 1. Resolves dbaron's open issue where logical directions change within a BFC[1]. 2. Resolves my concern of sideways-left being an inline property value at Sydney F2F[2]. IIUC jdagett expressed the same concern before. 3. This proposal is inline with fantasai saying "we could make it apply to blocks only" to resolve #2[2]. 3. Resolves the issue where a non-at-risk value (sideways) has a dependency on an at-risk value. 4. Eliminates a combination "vertical-rl + sideways-left" that has no use cases and thus helps testing. For authors, this definition is almost equivalent. Current: html { text-orientation: sideways; } .clockwise { writing-mode: vertical-rl; } .counterclockwise { writing-mode: vertical-lr; } This proposal: html { text-orientation: sideways-right; } .clockwise { writing-mode: vertical-rl; } .counterclockwise { writing-mode: sideways-left; } The only downside I can think of is that we found a printed material where RTL text within CJK vertical flow was rotated. This is still possible by inline-block with writing-mode: sideways-left or transform: rotate(180deg), but we can no longer wrap lines within such rotated text. This is considered to be very rare, and I'm not aware of any such digital text yet. I think this limitation is acceptable when considered the benefits. Thoughts? Any other downsides I missed? [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Apr/0026.html [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0188.html /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
L. David Baron   Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:25:41 -0700

www-style > June 2015 > 0045.html

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 20:26:08 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Wednesday 2015-06-03 04:00 +0900, Koji Ishii wrote: > I'd like to propose: > > writing-mode: sideways-left > > which is equivalent to setting the two properties: > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > text-orientation: sideways-left; CSS doesn't have properties where some of their values reset another property but some don't. So are you proposing that writing-mode always become a shorthand that includes text-orientation? (And, if so, is there now a longhand corresponding to the actual value in writing-mode?) -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Wed, 3 Jun 2015 11:35:32 +0900

www-style > June 2015 > 0055.html

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 02:36:01 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:25 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 2015-06-03 04:00 +0900, Koji Ishii wrote: >> I'd like to propose: >> >> writing-mode: sideways-left >> >> which is equivalent to setting the two properties: >> writing-mode: vertical-lr; >> text-orientation: sideways-left; > > CSS doesn't have properties where some of their values reset another > property but some don't. So are you proposing that writing-mode > always become a shorthand that includes text-orientation? (And, if > so, is there now a longhand corresponding to the actual value in > writing-mode?) Ah, no. I meant to "move the value to writing-mode", so "text-orientation: sideways-left" is gone in this proposal. Sorry for not clarifying that in the original post. Otherwise we're not solving issues. So I think the correct wording would be: ``` which sets the block flow to left-to-right and the LTR inline flow to bottom-to-top (or RTL inline flow to top-to-bottom.) This produces equivalent rendering by setting the two properties in the current spec: writing-mode: vertical-lr; text-orientation: sideways-left; but with this value defined in this proposal, "text-orientation: sideways-left" is removed instead. ``` I need better wording for the spec, but is the intention clear now? /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
L. David Baron   Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:54:02 -0700

www-style > June 2015 > 0056.html

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 03:54:29 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Wednesday 2015-06-03 11:35 +0900, Koji Ishii wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:25 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday 2015-06-03 04:00 +0900, Koji Ishii wrote: > >> I'd like to propose: > >> > >> writing-mode: sideways-left > >> > >> which is equivalent to setting the two properties: > >> writing-mode: vertical-lr; > >> text-orientation: sideways-left; > > > > CSS doesn't have properties where some of their values reset another > > property but some don't. So are you proposing that writing-mode > > always become a shorthand that includes text-orientation? (And, if > > so, is there now a longhand corresponding to the actual value in > > writing-mode?) > > Ah, no. I meant to "move the value to writing-mode", so > "text-orientation: sideways-left" is gone in this proposal. Sorry for > not clarifying that in the original post. Otherwise we're not solving > issues. ... > I need better wording for the spec, but is the intention clear now? I still don't follow. With your proposal: (1) what values does 'writing-mode' take? (2) what values does 'text-orientation' take? -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:09:36 +0900

www-style > June 2015 > 0057.html

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 04:10:03 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:54 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > I still don't follow. > > With your proposal: > (1) what values does 'writing-mode' take? > (2) what values does 'text-orientation' take? Sorry for very unclear proposal...here's the updated syntax by this proposal: writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-left text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways-right /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:33:52 +0900

www-style > June 2015 > 0103.html

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 17:34:20 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sorry that my voice this time was too small, but it looks like it was taken as if the implementation complexity was the only reason. I prefer this from authors perspective too. When you want to rotate clock-wise, authors do: writing-mode: vertical-rl; and most authors do not bother to set text-orientation at all. I do like to recommend to set "text-orientation: sideways-right" to avoid surprises, but most responses I get is that they don't want to. Now with the current spec, if you want to rotate counter-clock-wise, authors do: writing-mode: vertical-lr; text-orientation: sideways; So these two are not symmetric to authors. This looks more consistent for authors to me: writing-mode: sideways-left; BTW, I'm open for the naming if that's the concern. /koji On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:54 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >> >> I still don't follow. >> >> With your proposal: >> (1) what values does 'writing-mode' take? >> (2) what values does 'text-orientation' take? > > Sorry for very unclear proposal...here's the updated syntax by this proposal: > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-left > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways-right > > /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
fantasai   Sat, 04 Jul 2015 14:21:08 -0400

www-style > July 2015 > 0060.html

Received on Saturday, 4 July 2015 18:21:37 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 06/02/2015 03:00 PM, Koji Ishii wrote: > I'd like to propose: > > writing-mode: sideways-left > > which is equivalent to setting the two properties: > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > text-orientation: sideways-left; > > When this value is specified, I prefer to make the used value of > text-orientation to sideways-right, but I'm good not to if this is > controversial. > > Although equivalent, this proposal has following benefits. > > 1. Resolves dbaron's open issue where logical directions change within a BFC[1]. > > 2. Resolves my concern of sideways-left being an inline property value > at Sydney F2F[2]. IIUC jdagett expressed the same concern before. > > 3. This proposal is inline with fantasai saying "we could make it > apply to blocks only" to resolve #2[2]. > > 3. Resolves the issue where a non-at-risk value (sideways) has a > dependency on an at-risk value. > > 4. Eliminates a combination "vertical-rl + sideways-left" that has no > use cases and thus helps testing. There are 3 use cases for sideways-left: 1) Counter-clockwise-rotated blocks of horizontal-script text 2) Top-to-bottom orientation of RTL runs in vertical text 3) Ogham Use case #1 is very important imho to this spec. And triggering a new block formatting context does not interfere with this use case. Use case #2 is rare, but requires inline orientation support. Use case #3 is even more rare, and in most cases is handled as case #1. In theory it could also end up as adjunct to case #2, but this would be extremely unusual. My objection to moving 'sideways-left' from 'text-orientation' to 'writing-mode' is that, for case #1, the behavior and API of clockwise rotation and counter-clockwise rotation must be symmetric. For horizontal script users, there is no fundamental difference between rotating 90deg clockwise or rotating 90deg counter-clockwise, and thus to have them be different in CSS is confusing and unhelpful. Thinking about this some more, though, I think what we can do is move *both* orientations into the writing-mode, like this: writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-rl | sideways-lr; text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) This preserves symmetry, and actually makes it even easier for horizontal-script authors to get the two most common behaviors. They no longer need to use 'text-orientation' unless they want, specifically, upright text. So we have these cases then: Vertical Script Use Cases: Chinese, Japanese, Korean writing-mode: vertical-rl; + text-orientation: sideways | upright for inline tweaking Mongolian writing-mode: vertical-lr; + text-orientation: sideways | upright for inline tweaking Horizontal Script Use Cases: Clockwise writing-mode: sideways-rl; Counter-clockwise writing-mode: sideways-lr; Upright LTR writing-mode: vertical-lr; text-orientation: upright; Upright RTL writing-mode: vertical-rl; text-orientation: upright; * We would probably disable the 'svrt' feature for the sideways writing modes, only enable it for vertical writing modes with sideways text orientation. * Whether -rl or -lr is used depends sometimes on 'direction' but most often on the layout context, e.g. right side or left side of the page. Unsolved Use Cases: RTL top-to-bottom inline with CJK (rare, but does happen) Ogham inline with CJK (very weird case, probably OK to not solve) I think it's OK for these last two cases to remain unsolved. The first one would be nice to have, but isn't critical for anyone, and the last case is mostly theoretical I think. ~fantasai
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
John Daggett   Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:04:35 +0900

www-style > July 2015 > 0064.html

Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 01:05:04 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Koji Ishii wrote: > I'd like to propose: > > writing-mode: sideways-left > > which is equivalent to setting the two properties: > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > text-orientation: sideways-left; fantasai wrote: > Thinking about this some more, though, I think what we can do > is move *both* orientations into the writing-mode, like this: > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-rl | sideways-lr; > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) Both of these proposals seem like extremely poor property design to me. Putting text-orientation values into the 'writing-mode' property will be totally confusing for authors, both those working with vertical captions in non-CJK text and for those working with non-CJK vertical scripts. I think we should keep the 'writing-mode' and 'text-orientation' properties simple and orthogonal and not try and turn 'writing-mode' into some form of pseudo-shorthand. Implementations will eventually implement 'sideways-left' for vertical caption use. Just because they haven't done so yet is not really a good justification for moving 'sideways-left' into 'writing-mode'. Regards, John Daggett Mozilla Japan ​
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:19:07 +0900

www-style > July 2015 > 0065.html

Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 05:19:34 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Comments below: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:04 AM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > [snip] > Both of these proposals seem like extremely poor property design to me. > Putting text-orientation values into the 'writing-mode' property will be > totally confusing for authors, both those working with vertical captions in > non-CJK text and for those working with non-CJK vertical scripts. > > I think we should keep the 'writing-mode' and 'text-orientation' > properties simple and orthogonal and not try and turn 'writing-mode' into > some form of pseudo-shorthand. > > Implementations will eventually implement 'sideways-left' for vertical > caption use. Just because they haven't done so yet is not really a good > justification for moving 'sideways-left' into 'writing-mode'. > It was my bad to explain my concern poorly, sorry about that. The implementation complexity is only part of the concern, but it's more about confusion for authors. Both sides saying the other is confusing authors, so I suppose it's how one would view it, but as I talk to more authors on vertical flow in CJK and non-CJK, I found I'm not alone to think the current spec is confusing. In my conceptual model for clock-wise rotation: * writing-mode rotates the block, common characters rotate too for non-CJK. * text-orientation additionally rotates some non-common characters for non-CJK. But to rotate counter-clock-wise: * writing-mode rotates clock-wise, and * use text-orientation to rotate the result by 180 degree. I think this inconsistency confuses authors. When authors want to change how characters/lines flow, using the writing-mode property looks more consistent to me. On the other hand, letting text-orientation to rotate baseline only for sideways-left is the pseudo-shorthand from my view. I'm not sure how to resolve this, when both sides think one is consistent for the exactly the same reasons, and the views are different, but is my view, though probably not agreeable for you, at least understandable? /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Florian Rivoal   Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:04:16 +0200

www-style > July 2015 > 0071.html

Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 15:04:45 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

> On 06 Jul 2015, at 03:04, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > Koji Ishii wrote: > > > I'd like to propose: > > > > writing-mode: sideways-left > > > > which is equivalent to setting the two properties: > > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > > text-orientation: sideways-left; > > fantasai wrote: > > > Thinking about this some more, though, I think what we can do > > is move *both* orientations into the writing-mode, like this: > > > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-rl | sideways-lr; > > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) > > Both of these proposals seem like extremely poor property design to me. Putting text-orientation values into the 'writing-mode' property will be totally confusing for authors, both those working with vertical captions in non-CJK text and for those working with non-CJK vertical scripts. > > I think we should keep the 'writing-mode' and 'text-orientation' properties simple and orthogonal and not try and turn 'writing-mode' into some form of pseudo-shorthand. I dislike Koji's proposal as well, but Fantasai sounds quite reasonable to me. The system we've had so far (which I am not categorically opposed to, but is meeting some push back) isn't quite as orthogonal and clean as it seems at first: - the-text orientation property conflates 2 things: glyph orientation and baseline orientation (only for the sideways-left value). - the text-orientation property is ignored in one of the writing modes already: writing-mode:horizontal. In that sense writing-mode:horizontal determines all 3 aspects (block flow direction, baseline orientation, glyph orientation). When it comes to implementing it, the fact that text-orientation:sideways-left afects the baseline orientation in addition to the glyph orientation makes things significantly more involved. If we go with Fantasai's proposal: - In addition to writing-mode:horizontal, we introduce 2 writing modes that determine all 3 aspects: sideways-left and sideways-right. - text-orientation, being relieved of sideways-left, now never affects baseline orientation, and is solely about glyph orientation, making it much simpler to implement. I do think we should bikeshed things a bit, so that the same word (sideways) is not used to both describe 2 of the writing modes and 1 of the text-orientations, but this is not essential to the proposal. So this is arguably more orthogonal than what we currently have, is easier to implement, and is equally usable for CJK/M authors, and is more usable for horizontal script authors wanting sideways captions. If we want truly orthogonal properties, we'd need to go with 3, not 2: writing-mode: horizontal | vertical-rl | vertical-lr glyph-orientation: upright | perpendicular-to-baseline | mixed baseline-orientation: normal | flipped However, this is even less convenient than the current design to use for horizontal script authors wanting sideways captions, and it supports things that have no use-case: - vertical-* + upright + flipped - horizontal + * + flipped - vertical-rl + perpendicular-to-baseline + flipped on ltr scripts > Implementations will eventually implement 'sideways-left' for vertical caption use. Just because they haven't done so yet is not really a good justification for moving 'sideways-left' into 'writing-mode'. I don't know if implementations should eventually implement sideways-left, as currently designed. As fantasai mentioned, There are 3 use cases for sideways-left: 1) Counter-clockwise-rotated blocks of horizontal-script text 2) Top-to-bottom orientation of RTL runs in vertical text 3) Ogham (2) is the one that introduces complexity, since it is the only one to require the ability to flip the baseline direction on inlines. Yes, browsers will need to support (1), but that doesn't mean we must have a design that requires support for (2) if you're only trying to solve(1). (3) is sufficiently supported if you can do (1). Personally, I like (2), so all while discussions in the group described it as a very rare use case, I've been looking for evidence that it was more common and deserved support. I failed. As I am not currently in either a CJK/M country, or an rtl script country, my research has been hampered somewhat, but I did reach out to Japanese professors of Arabic studies, Persian studies, and Urdu studies, an Arabic and Persian speaking librarian who oversees (among other things) the Chinese section of her library, as well as someone I know who does typesetting in both Japanese and Arabic (and is also fluent in Chinese, Hebrew and Yidish). When asked about rtl sideways-left inside vertical CJK, the general response was "Hmmm. Nope, don't think I've ever seen that." I did find one Chinese calligraphy artist who does a fusion of the Chinese and Arabic styles, and he does have some (lovely) samples of vertical-rl/sideways-left. http://www.hajinoordeen.com/gallery/UF-M-028.jpg http://www.hajinoordeen.com/gallery/UF-G-004.jpg http://www.hajinoordeen.com/gallery/SL-T-017.jpg But this is sufficiently far out of mainstream that it does not count as evidence there's an actual need. I am sure that my research can be considered lousy, and that we could certainly turn up less extreme examples. But I've at least convinced myself that this was indeed sufficiently rare thing, not worth significant complications to the whole spec. And if we're not going to support that, fantasai's new design is better. TL;DR: I agree with fantasai. - Florian
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Tue, 7 Jul 2015 11:07:49 +0900

www-style > July 2015 > 0079.html

Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 02:08:18 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > [snip] > And if we're not going to support that, fantasai's new design is better. > > TL;DR: I agree with fantasai. > I'm with fantasai's proposal too, consider mine a history. /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
John Daggett   Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:48:03 +0900

www-style > July 2015 > 0081.html

Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 06:48:31 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Reading through Koji and Florian's messages, they appear to be agreeing with fantasai's proposed revision: > Thinking about this some more, though, I think what we can do > is move *both* orientations into the writing-mode, like this: > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-rl | sideways-lr; > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) > > This preserves symmetry, and actually makes it even easier for > horizontal-script authors to get the two most common behaviors. > They no longer need to use 'text-orientation' unless they want, > specifically, upright text. So we have these cases then: This is super confusing for authors I think. You're effectively making 'writing-mode' a pseudo-shorthand because it will need to override 'text-orientation' values, but only sometimes (i.e. the sideways-xxx cases). You're introducing all sorts of odd combinations: writing-mode: sideways-rl; text-orientation: mixed; /* it's not really mixed anymore? */ writing-mode: sideways-lr; text-orientation: upright; /* one of the values has to take precedence */ The most common use case for vertical text is CJK authoring. For that authors really only need to use 'writing-mode', since the default value of text-orientation will work most of the time: /* text-orientation defaults to mixed so doesn't need to be set */ writing-mode: vertical-rl; Only when overriding the default orientation does a CJK author need to worry about setting 'text-orientation' explicitly. I feel strongly that the complexity of other use cases, vertical captions, vertical RTL or Ogham should be handled by 'text-orientation' values. I also think dealing with these use cases should be the subject of a next-level spec, not this one. We need to achieve simple interop for the common CJK case first. Regards, ​ John Daggett
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Florian Rivoal   Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:20:05 +0200

www-style > July 2015 > 0083.html

Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 10:20:37 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

> On 07 Jul 2015, at 08:48, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > > Reading through Koji and Florian's messages, they appear to be agreeing > with fantasai's proposed revision: Correct. > > Thinking about this some more, though, I think what we can do > > is move *both* orientations into the writing-mode, like this: > > > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-rl | sideways-lr; > > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) > > > > This preserves symmetry, and actually makes it even easier for > > horizontal-script authors to get the two most common behaviors. > > They no longer need to use 'text-orientation' unless they want, > > specifically, upright text. So we have these cases then: > This is super confusing for authors I think. You're effectively making > 'writing-mode' a pseudo-shorthand because it will need to override > 'text-orientation' values, but only sometimes (i.e. the sideways-xxx > cases). This is not a shorthand, this is just about when the text-orientation property applies or not. There are multiple examples of properties that apply in some cases and not other in all over CSS. overflow is not considered a shorthand of resize just because resize only applies when overflow is something else than visible. Just the same, there is not reason to consider writing modes a shorthand of text-orientation just because text-orientation only applies in some writing modes. More over, the behavior you get with writing-mode:sideways-left is something you could not achieve with (the redesigned version of) text-orientation. Moreover, this behavior of having text-orientation only apply in some writing-modes is already the the case in the current spec. writing-mode:horizontal already ignores the text-orientation values. This only proposing to extend this to the other modes that horizontal script authors use when they want sideways captions. In these modes, there is not question about where the baseline should go, or what the glyph orientation should be. There is only one correct answer, so you switch a single property and you get it. This is much less confusing that the current situation, where authors who have never thought of the possibility that glyph orientation could be determined by something else than the line orientation itself are required to set the text-orientation property away from its default to 'sideways'. For western authors, text-orientation:sideways just becomes a magic incantation that means "do what I've already asked for", and breaks your page if you forget it. > You're introducing all sorts of odd combinations: > > writing-mode: sideways-rl; > text-orientation: mixed; /* it's not really mixed anymore? */ text-orientation is does not apply in this writing mode, so it is no more a confusing combination than writing-mode:horizontal;text-orientation:mixed. > writing-mode: sideways-lr; > text-orientation: upright; /* one of the values has to take precedence */ text-orientation does not apply in this writing mode, so you get what you asked for: sideways-lr. > The most common use case for vertical text is CJK authoring. For that > authors really only need to use 'writing-mode', since the default value > of text-orientation will work most of the time: > > /* text-orientation defaults to mixed so doesn't need to be set */ > writing-mode: vertical-rl; Under fantasai's new proposal, this is still true. > Only when overriding the default orientation does a CJK author need to > worry about setting 'text-orientation' explicitly. Still true. But under the old proposal, non-CJK authors wanting vertical text (for captions) always need to set the text-orientation to sideways. Under the new one, they don't. > I feel strongly that the complexity of other use cases, vertical > captions, vertical RTL or Ogham should be handled by 'text-orientation' > values. I also think dealing with these use cases should be the subject > of a next-level spec, not this one. We need to achieve simple interop > for the common CJK case first. Modulo potential bikeshedding, dropping text-orientation: sideways-left and not introducing the sideways-* writing modes gives you something that is the strict intersection of the current spec and fantasai's proposal, and it supports CJK/M layout just fine. If we're fine with not supporting the horizontal scripts in vertical captions use cases in level 1, I am happy to go with this subset for now, since both proposals share it. But if we want to support these use cases, the current spec forces us to support downwards RTL in vertical, while fantasai's proposal allows us to support the former without the later. Given that there is pretty much no use case for the later, and that fantasai's proposal is indentical for CJK authors and easier to use for horizontal-script authors, I think it is a better way forward. - Florian
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Jonathan Kew   Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:55:04 +0100

www-style > July 2015 > 0114.html

Received on Friday, 10 July 2015 10:55:33 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 4/7/15 19:21, fantasai wrote: > Thinking about this some more, though, I think what we can do > is move *both* orientations into the writing-mode, like this: > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-rl > | sideways-lr; > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) > > This preserves symmetry, and actually makes it even easier for > horizontal-script authors to get the two most common behaviors. > They no longer need to use 'text-orientation' unless they want, > specifically, upright text. So we have these cases then: > > Vertical Script Use Cases: > > Chinese, Japanese, Korean > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > + text-orientation: sideways | upright for inline tweaking > Mongolian > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > + text-orientation: sideways | upright for inline tweaking > > Horizontal Script Use Cases: > > Clockwise > writing-mode: sideways-rl; > Counter-clockwise > writing-mode: sideways-lr; > Upright LTR > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > text-orientation: upright; > Upright RTL > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > text-orientation: upright; > > * We would probably disable the 'svrt' feature for the sideways > writing modes, only enable it for vertical writing modes with > sideways text orientation. What is this 'svrt' feature of which you speak? I don't see it listed at https://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/featurelist.htm, nor mentioned in http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/. What am I missing? JK
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Richard Ishida   Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:21:14 +0100

www-style > July 2015 > 0119.html

Received on Friday, 10 July 2015 15:21:25 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 04/07/2015 19:21, fantasai wrote: > On 06/02/2015 03:00 PM, Koji Ishii wrote: ... > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-rl > | sideways-lr; > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) > > This preserves symmetry, and actually makes it even easier for > horizontal-script authors to get the two most common behaviors. > They no longer need to use 'text-orientation' unless they want, > specifically, upright text. So we have these cases then: > > Vertical Script Use Cases: > > Chinese, Japanese, Korean > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > + text-orientation: sideways | upright for inline tweaking > Mongolian > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > + text-orientation: sideways | upright for inline tweaking > > Horizontal Script Use Cases: > > Clockwise > writing-mode: sideways-rl; > Counter-clockwise > writing-mode: sideways-lr; > Upright LTR > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > text-orientation: upright; > Upright RTL > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > text-orientation: upright; > > * We would probably disable the 'svrt' feature for the sideways > writing modes, only enable it for vertical writing modes with > sideways text orientation. > > * Whether -rl or -lr is used depends sometimes on 'direction' > but most often on the layout context, e.g. right side or > left side of the page. > > Unsolved Use Cases: > > RTL top-to-bottom inline with CJK (rare, but does happen) > Ogham inline with CJK (very weird case, probably OK to not solve) > > I think it's OK for these last two cases to remain unsolved. > The first one would be nice to have, but isn't critical for > anyone, and the last case is mostly theoretical I think. the more i think about this, the less clear it becomes. i have attached an image that shows various numbered use cases. Fantasai, Koji, Florian, could you each indicate how you think CSS properties and values should be used to achieve each of the use cases? what's the difference between sideways-rl and vertical-rl? Presumably none for horizontal latin text. Or does this rotate all CJKM characters 90º clockwise? i'm wondering whether a better name for sideways-lr would be horizontal-bt, and possibly horizontal-tb for sideways-rl? what i'm not clear about wrt horizontal text that runs up the page is where the line start is. Is that defined? suppose i wanted to put the following text sideways latin text in a table header cell, and that the table cell height is restricted so that it only contains three words per line. "one two three four five" i'm pretty sure that the words "four five" would be on the second line (whether that's to the left or right of the first line), rather than appearing on the first and pushing 'one two' to the second line (which implies that the latin text has opposite-direction behaviour, and behaving like we currently expect rtl text to behave wrt line breaking. Doing that with text-orientations sounds odd). i'm assuming that this is what sideways-lr is for, but if an author used that would the word "one" and the word "four" to be touching the bottom of the container, or would "three" and "five" be touching the top of the container? And where is the line start? if you use Word to add some latin text to a table header that runs up the page, it shows the line start at the bottom of the cell. To do that you set direction to "Rotate all text 270º". i can't help thinking that we are struggling because we're trying to do two different things with one set of properties. i think that where text-orientation comes in is to affect the default orientation of vertical text only, ie. CJKM text, either by making the latin upright, or by making the CJK text run down the page. I'm inclined to think that support for latin text running up the page or arabic text running down it while embedded in CJKM text is something so rare that we don't need to worry about it – or at the very least we shouldn't let it continue to bog down progress on supporting the basic needs that people have been asking for for years now. i suspect that fitting latin text in a table heading so that it runs bottom to top, or top to bottom, is really a case of rotating the horizontally laid out text, and nothing more. (This would mean that only 'horizontal-bt' would put a second line on the right, and only 'horizontal-tb' would put it on the left.) ri PS: fwiw, here's an example of Latin text running up the page, however it is only in a loose association with the vertical-rl orientation of the chinese and japanese alongside it. I can count on one hand the other examples i've seen of text running in this direction. I assume that if this were translated into Arabic, that would run down the page but with the top of the glyphs to the left. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/19391039009/
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:57:35 +0900

www-style > July 2015 > 0131.html

Received on Sunday, 12 July 2015 05:58:23 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > [snip] > i have attached an image that shows various numbered use cases. Fantasai, > Koji, Florian, could you each indicate how you think CSS properties and > values should be used to achieve each of the use cases? > 1, 2, 5: sideways-lr, non-CJKM 3, 6: vertical-rl, CJK 4, 7, 8: sideways-rl, non-CJKM vertical-lr (Mongolian) is not included in these 8 cases. They look similar to 3, 6 but lines flow from left to right. what's the difference between sideways-rl and vertical-rl? Presumably none > for horizontal latin text. Almost none. but two I would list are: 1. Ambiguous (unified) characters behave as CJKM for "vertical" and as non-CJKM for "sideways". 2. There are some subtle typographic differences between Latin characters in CJK vertical and rotated Latin. They're distinguished between the two values. > Or does this rotate all CJKM characters 90º clockwise? > Yes for "sideways", no for "vertical". You could consider "sideways" being no more than rotation, while "vertical" involves CJKM vertical flow typographic conventions such as their native characters appear in upright. i'm wondering whether a better name for sideways-lr would be horizontal-bt, > and possibly horizontal-tb for sideways-rl? > I'm not good at bikeshedding, so I'd like to delegate that to someone else ;-) what i'm not clear about wrt horizontal text that runs up the page is where > the line start is. Is that defined? > suppose i wanted to put the following text sideways latin text in a table > header cell, and that the table cell height is restricted so that it only > contains three words per line. > > "one two three four five" > > i'm pretty sure that the words "four five" would be on the second line > (whether that's to the left or right of the first line), rather than > appearing on the first and pushing 'one two' to the second line (which > implies that the latin text has opposite-direction behaviour, and behaving > like we currently expect rtl text to behave wrt line breaking. Doing that > with text-orientations sounds odd). > > i'm assuming that this is what sideways-lr is for, but if an author used > that would the word "one" and the word "four" to be touching the bottom of > the container, or would "three" and "five" be touching the top of the > container? And where is the line start? > I think you're trying to understand in a complex way. Is it easier to understand if you consider "sideways-rl" is a clock-wise rotation, and "sideways-lr" is a counter-clock-wise rotation? It's what they do. if you use Word to add some latin text to a table header that runs up the > page, it shows the line start at the bottom of the cell. To do that you set > direction to "Rotate all text 270º". > > i can't help thinking that we are struggling because we're trying to do > two different things with one set of properties. > I think opposite. The important distinction is whether you want to rotate "characters" or "lines". With the proposal, if you want to rotate "lines", writing-mode is the property, it now allows both 90 and 270. If you want to rotate "characters" without affecting lines at all, text-orientation is the property. The current sideways-left and sideways-right are not consistent in this regard. i think that where text-orientation comes in is to affect the default > orientation of vertical text only, ie. CJKM text, either by making the > latin upright, or by making the CJK text run down the page. I'm inclined > to think that support for latin text running up the page or arabic text > running down it while embedded in CJKM text is something so rare that we > don't need to worry about it – or at the very least we shouldn't let it > continue to bog down progress on supporting the basic needs that people > have been asking for for years now. > > i suspect that fitting latin text in a table heading so that it runs > bottom to top, or top to bottom, is really a case of rotating the > horizontally laid out text, and nothing more. (This would mean that only > 'horizontal-bt' would put a second line on the right, and only > 'horizontal-tb' would put it on the left.) > Yeah, that's where this proposal improves. Now you can use the same property to rotate clock-wise or counter-clock-wise, just different values. Non-CJK authors have no question in character orientation once line was rotated, so all they need to learn is the writing-mode property. > fwiw, here's an example of Latin text running up the page, however it is > only in a loose association with the vertical-rl orientation of the chinese > and japanese alongside it. I can count on one hand the other examples i've > seen of text running in this direction. I assume that if this were > translated into Arabic, that would run down the page but with the top of > the glyphs to the left. > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/19391039009/ > This example in the current spec is: writing-mode: vertical-rl; /* rotate lines (along with characters) 90 degree */ text-orientation: sideways-left; /* then rotate lines (along with characters) 180 degree */ With this proposal: writing-mode: sideways-lr; /* rotate liens (along with characters) 270 degree */ /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Richard Ishida   Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:57:04 +0100

www-style > July 2015 > 0140.html

Received on Monday, 13 July 2015 08:57:18 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 12/07/2015 06:57, Koji Ishii wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org > <mailto:ishida@w3.org>> wrote: > > [snip] > i have attached an image that shows various numbered use cases. > Fantasai, Koji, Florian, could you each indicate how you think CSS > properties and values should be used to achieve each of the use cases? > > > 1, 2, 5: sideways-lr, non-CJKM > 3, 6: vertical-rl, CJK > 4, 7, 8: sideways-rl, non-CJKM > > vertical-lr (Mongolian) is not included in these 8 cases. They look > similar to 3, 6 but lines flow from left to right. this misses a key thing i was looking for, which is where the line start is, and how the text is aligned. from the rest of your email, i conclude that the following applies. Is this correct? [1,2] writing-mode: sideways-lr; [5] writing-mode: sideways-lr; text-align: end; [4] writing-mode: sideways-rl; [7,8] writing-mode: sideways-rl; text-align: end; [6] writing-mode: vertical-rl; for [3] see below > what's the difference between sideways-rl and vertical-rl? > Presumably none for horizontal latin text. > > > Almost none. but two I would list are: > 1. Ambiguous (unified) characters behave as CJKM for "vertical" and as > non-CJKM for "sideways". > 2. There are some subtle typographic differences between Latin > characters in CJK vertical and rotated Latin. They're distinguished > between the two values. > > Or does this rotate all CJKM characters 90º clockwise? > > > Yes for "sideways", no for "vertical". You could consider "sideways" > being no more than rotation, while "vertical" involves CJKM vertical > flow typographic conventions such as their native characters appear in > upright. ... > I think you're trying to understand in a complex way. Is it easier to > understand if you consider "sideways-rl" is a clock-wise rotation, and > "sideways-lr" is a counter-clock-wise rotation? It's what they do. i think the key to clarity here is to indicate *what* it's a clockwise rotation of: characters or lines? As i understand it, it a clockwise rotation of lines (or sometimes parts of a line). that makes sense. So effectively, writing-mode determines the orientation of lines, with the caveat that if you use vertical-xx, it also factors in an upright rotation of certain characters so that CJK look upright and Mongolian looks right too. that seems ok to me. ... > I think opposite. The important distinction is whether you want to > rotate "characters" or "lines". With the proposal, if you want to rotate > "lines", writing-mode is the property, it now allows both 90 and 270. If > you want to rotate "characters" without affecting lines at all, > text-orientation is the property. The current sideways-left and > sideways-right are not consistent in this regard. > ... > > Yeah, that's where this proposal improves. Now you can use the same > property to rotate clock-wise or counter-clock-wise, just different > values. Non-CJK authors have no question in character orientation once > line was rotated, so all they need to learn is the writing-mode property. > > fwiw, here's an example of Latin text running up the page, however > it is only in a loose association with the vertical-rl orientation > of the chinese and japanese alongside it. I can count on one hand > the other examples i've seen of text running in this direction. I > assume that if this were translated into Arabic, that would run down > the page but with the top of the glyphs to the left. > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/19391039009/ > > > This example in the current spec is: > writing-mode: vertical-rl; /* rotate lines (along with characters) 90 > degree */ > text-orientation: sideways-left; /* then rotate lines (along with > characters) 180 degree */ > With this proposal: > writing-mode: sideways-lr; /* rotate liens (along with characters) > 270 degree */ the new proposal seems more straightforward to me. [Actually, the setting of the top of the three boxes containing text is set at a regular offset from one line to the next, which makes me think this is 3 separate boxes with text aligned towards the top of the page. So with this proposal, i think you'd have to have writing-mode: sideways-lr; text-align: end; set on the box containing Latin.] if, however, the text was embedded inline and ran up the page - which is what [3] in the original image should have shown, if i hadn't forgotten to fix it, and what [3] now shows in the attached, updated image – i'm assuming that the current proposal would require you to do something like add a span around the latin text and apply CSS per span.latin { writing-modes: sideways-rl; } assuming that that's correct, if we add span.latin { margin-start: 10px; }, does the space open up above or below the latin text? If, however, we add span.latin { ruby-align: start; } and the rt says 'a', i assume that the 'a' would appear over 'W' in W3C. Is that right? ri
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:38:22 +0900

www-style > July 2015 > 0142.html

Received on Monday, 13 July 2015 12:39:09 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > [snip] > this misses a key thing i was looking for, which is where the line start > is, and how the text is aligned. > > from the rest of your email, i conclude that the following applies. Is > this correct? > > [1,2] writing-mode: sideways-lr; > [5] writing-mode: sideways-lr; text-align: end; > [4] writing-mode: sideways-rl; > [7,8] writing-mode: sideways-rl; text-align: end; > [6] writing-mode: vertical-rl; > Correct. Sorry I omitted text-align part ;-) > i think the key to clarity here is to indicate *what* it's a clockwise > rotation of: characters or lines? As i understand it, it a clockwise > rotation of lines (or sometimes parts of a line). > > that makes sense. So effectively, writing-mode determines the orientation > of lines, with the caveat that if you use vertical-xx, it also factors in > an upright rotation of certain characters so that CJK look upright and > Mongolian looks right too. > > that seems ok to me. > Correct. The current spec has consistent in one aspect, but the *what* was not consistent, and the new proposal fixes that. the new proposal seems more straightforward to me. > Great to hear that. > [Actually, the setting of the top of the three boxes containing text is > set at a regular offset from one line to the next, which makes me think > this is 3 separate boxes with text aligned towards the top of the page. So > with this proposal, i think you'd have to have > writing-mode: sideways-lr; text-align: end; > set on the box containing Latin.] > Sorry, I don't follow this part. What is the "top of the three boxes"? > if, however, the text was embedded inline and ran up the page - which is > what [3] in the original image should have shown, if i hadn't forgotten to > fix it, and what [3] now shows in the attached, updated image – i'm > assuming that the current proposal would require you to do something like > add a span around the latin text and apply CSS per > > span.latin { writing-modes: sideways-rl; } > Correct. > assuming that that's correct, if we add span.latin { margin-start: 10px; > }, does the space open up above or below the latin text? Below. The span is an inline-block with a mixed writing-mode. Within the block, "start" is physical bottom. > If, however, we add span.latin { ruby-align: start; } and the rt says 'a', > i assume that the 'a' would appear over 'W' in W3C. Is that right? Yes. /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Richard Ishida   Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:10:39 +0100

www-style > July 2015 > 0166.html

Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2015 13:10:54 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 13/07/2015 13:38, Koji Ishii wrote: > [Actually, the setting of the top of the three boxes containing text > is set at a regular offset from one line to the next, which makes me > think this is 3 separate boxes with text aligned towards the top of > the page. So with this proposal, i think you'd have to have > writing-mode: sideways-lr; text-align: end; > set on the box containing Latin.] > > > Sorry, I don't follow this part. What is the "top of the three boxes"? sorry, yes that was a bit cryptic. I was referring to the picture at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/19391039009/ ignore that, and see below. so if we have an embedded run of text in a line of vertical CJKM text and we set the CSS for that embedded run as writing-mode: sideways-lr, what happens when the height of the window shrinks and the text tries to wrap? Suppose for example you have a vertical line styled as follows: p { writing-mode:vertical-rl; } span { writing-mode:sideways-lr; } <p>国际化活动、<span>Latin text</span>万维网联盟</p> if all that fits on one line, we'd see the chinese characters upright running down the line and the latin text running up the line with the tops of the letters to the left. if the line length is reduced by resizing the window, so that the line break will occur between 'Latin' and 'text', what will we see? I'm assuming the browser won't try to create another line to the right of the initial chinese text, even though writing-mode is at that point set to lr - ie. the line layout direction of the p overrides that of the span. Is that right? If so, given that we expect to have the first bit of chinese in the original line position, and the second in a new line to its left, will the word 'Latin' be in the original line or the left-hand one? ri
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:20:08 +0900

www-style > July 2015 > 0188.html

Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 04:20:55 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > On 13/07/2015 13:38, Koji Ishii wrote: > >> [Actually, the setting of the top of the three boxes containing text >> is set at a regular offset from one line to the next, which makes me >> think this is 3 separate boxes with text aligned towards the top of >> the page. So with this proposal, i think you'd have to have >> writing-mode: sideways-lr; text-align: end; >> set on the box containing Latin.] >> >> >> Sorry, I don't follow this part. What is the "top of the three boxes"? >> > > sorry, yes that was a bit cryptic. I was referring to the picture at > https://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/19391039009/ > ignore that, and see below. > > so if we have an embedded run of text in a line of vertical CJKM text and > we set the CSS for that embedded run as writing-mode: sideways-lr, what > happens when the height of the window shrinks and the text tries to wrap? > Suppose for example you have a vertical line styled as follows: > > p { writing-mode:vertical-rl; } > span { writing-mode:sideways-lr; } > > <p>国际化活动、<span>Latin text</span>万维网联盟</p> > > if all that fits on one line, we'd see the chinese characters upright > running down the line and the latin text running up the line with the tops > of the letters to the left. > > if the line length is reduced by resizing the window, so that the line > break will occur between 'Latin' and 'text', what will we see? I'm assuming > the browser won't try to create another line to the right of the initial > chinese text, even though writing-mode is at that point set to lr - ie. the > line layout direction of the p overrides that of the span. Is that right? > > If so, given that we expect to have the first bit of chinese in the > original line position, and the second in a new line to its left, will the > word 'Latin' be in the original line or the left-hand one? Spec-wise, the paragraph after Example 4[1] defines that: | If a box has a different block flow direction than its containing block: | * If the box has a specified display of inline, its display computes to inline-block. So the <span> is an inline-block. When the window gets smaller, it should behave just like an inline-block in horizontal flow; e.g., [2]. If I apply the rule to your example, I think it'd look like: | 国际化活动、(CJK before Latin) | Latin text (this should look upside down) | 万维网联盟 (CJK after Latin) then if you make it even smaller: | 国际化活动、(CJK before Latin) | text (this should look upside down) | Latin (this should look upside down) | 万维网联盟 (CJK after Latin) [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/#propdef-writing-mode [2] http://jsbin.com/rogukus/edit?html,output /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Bert Bos   Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:42:22 +0200

www-style > August 2015 > 0038.html

Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 19:42:42 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Tuesday 07 July 2015 12:20:05 Florian Rivoal wrote: > > On 07 Jul 2015, at 08:48, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > Reading through Koji and Florian's messages, they appear to be agreeing > > > with fantasai's proposed revision: > Correct. > > > > Thinking about this some more, though, I think what we can do > > > > > > is move *both* orientations into the writing-mode, like this: > > > > > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | > > > sideways-rl | sideways-lr; > > > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways (or sideways-rl) > > > > > > This preserves symmetry, and actually makes it even easier for > > > horizontal-script authors to get the two most common behaviors. > > > They no longer need to use 'text-orientation' unless they want, I think I'm starting to like fantasai's proposal. (Maybe 'mixed' should be called 'normal' or 'auto', but I'm not sure.) I'm not completely clear what the proposal for 'sideways' is. Fantasai's proposal cryptically said "sideways (or sideways-rl)". In particular, what does setting writing-mode: vertical-lr; text-orientation: sideways do? And if that turns characters clockwise, is the value actually still needed? between 'text-orientation: mixed' and 'writing-mode: sideways-rl' you cover most cases of text turned clockwise. What's missing then is _inline_ CJK turned sideways. Is that needed? 'text-orientation: use-glyph-orientation' isn't mentioned in fantasai's proposal, but I assume it is still there (and still at-risk)? Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:00:56 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0125.html

Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 05:01:44 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sorry for a slow response, I was on vacation and trying to catch up my inbox. On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote: > > I think I'm starting to like fantasai's proposal. > Great! > (Maybe 'mixed' should be called 'normal' or 'auto', but I'm not sure.) > > I'm not completely clear what the proposal for 'sideways' is. Fantasai's > proposal cryptically said "sideways (or sideways-rl)". In particular, what > does setting > > writing-mode: vertical-lr; text-orientation: sideways > > do? > I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking, but as Jonathan wrote, sideways and sideways-right are identical; it rotates upright-by-default characters clock-wise. In other words, it forces all characters set upright relative to the baseline. Does this solve? And if that turns characters clockwise, is the value actually still needed? > between 'text-orientation: mixed' and 'writing-mode: sideways-rl' you cover > most cases of text turned clockwise. What's missing then is _inline_ CJK > turned sideways. Is that needed? > Yes, that's the whole purpose of the text-orientation property now. Due to Unicode unification, there are code points that are either Latin or CJK, depends on the context or the author's intention. The "mixed" value gives a default orientation as defined in UTR#50, but UTR#50 acknowledges that it does not serve all cases and recommend higher level protocols should provide a way to override the default. 'text-orientation: use-glyph-orientation' isn't mentioned in fantasai's > proposal, but I assume it is still there (and still at-risk)? > It should follow the resolution in Sydney[1]: RESOLVED: Drop the values if the SVGWG drops the values/properties, otherwise keep them. [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0188.html /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
fantasai   Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:02:04 -0400

www-style > August 2015 > 0126.html

Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 13:02:34 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 07/10/2015 06:55 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: > > What is this 'svrt' feature of which you speak? I don't see it listed at > https://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/featurelist.htm, nor mentioned in http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/. > What am I missing? Sorry, it's the old name for the vrtr feature: http://blogs.adobe.com/CCJKType/2013/08/tale-of-three-features.html ~fantasai
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:11:18 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0154.html

Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 08:12:11 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

So, when the minutes[1] says: > Okay. We don't have Koji so I suggest we resolve on the > mailing list. > > - Everyone on the call was in support of the proposal to create > sideways-lr and sideways-rl in writing-mode, but all the > interested parties weren't on the call, so a decision will > occur on the mailing list. I'm good, and no objections doesn't seem to be seen on this ML so far. Can we say this is resolved now? [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0051.html /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Florian Rivoal   Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:03:29 +0200

www-style > August 2015 > 0156.html

Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 10:03:59 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

> On 18 Aug 2015, at 10:11, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > > So, when the minutes[1] says: > > > Okay. We don't have Koji so I suggest we resolve on the > > mailing list. > > > > - Everyone on the call was in support of the proposal to create > > sideways-lr and sideways-rl in writing-mode, but all the > > interested parties weren't on the call, so a decision will > > occur on the mailing list. > > I'm good, and no objections doesn't seem to be seen on this ML so far. > > Can we say this is resolved now? > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0051.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0051.html> I mentioned during the call that you were in favor, but it is John Daggett's opinion we're waiting for. - Florian
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Koji Ishii   Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:51:09 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0157.html

Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 10:51:56 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

+jdaggett On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > > On 18 Aug 2015, at 10:11, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > > So, when the minutes[1] says: > > > Okay. We don't have Koji so I suggest we resolve on the > > mailing list. > > > > - Everyone on the call was in support of the proposal to create > > sideways-lr and sideways-rl in writing-mode, but all the > > interested parties weren't on the call, so a decision will > > occur on the mailing list. > > I'm good, and no objections doesn't seem to be seen on this ML so far. > > Can we say this is resolved now? > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0051.html > > > I mentioned during the call that you were in favor, but it is John > Daggett's opinion we're waiting for. > Are you good with the proposal? /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
John Daggett   Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:12:21 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0186.html

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 08:12:51 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Florian wrote: > > So, when the minutes[1] says: > > > > > Okay. We don't have Koji so I suggest we resolve on the > > > mailing list. > > > > > > - Everyone on the call was in support of the proposal to create > > > sideways-lr and sideways-rl in writing-mode, but all the > > > interested parties weren't on the call, so a decision will > > > occur on the mailing list. > > > > I'm good, and no objections doesn't seem to be seen on this ML so far. > > > > Can we say this is resolved now? > > > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0051.html > > I mentioned during the call that you were in favor, but it is John > Daggett's opinion we're waiting for. No, I still don't think this is a good idea. It's exchanging complexity of implementation for authoring model complexity and that's almost always a poor choice in my opinion. Anyone involved in publishing here in Japan that I mention this to seems baffled by this proposal to add sideways-lr and sideways-rl to the writing-mode property. And I think implementors of EPUB viewers here are frustrated at changes like this and the impact it will have on this spec going to REC quickly. To summarize the proposal from Elika as I understand it: Current definition [1]: writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways-right | sideways-left | sideways Authors use the writing-mode property to enable vertical text display and the text-orientation property to override the orientation of text within a line, when needed. Proposed change [2]: writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-lr | sideways-rl text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways CJK authors use vertical-rl while authors wanting vertical headings in tables use either sideways-rl or sideways-lr. CJK authors use text-orientation to override the orientation of text within a line but text-orientation has no effect on authors using sideways-rl or sideways-lr. It seems to me this proposal is being driven by some complexities that don't really exist in content, for example when the orientation of text changes within a line: p { writing-mode: vertical-rl } span.left { text-orientation: sideways-left } <p>This is a <span class=left>strange ball of beeswax</span></p> But how this sort of complexity is solved isn't really important. It won't occur frequently in content so we can use implementation experience to come up with better proposals in later levels of the spec. Cluttering up the writing-mode property seems like a mistake to me and making this change will affect implementations that already implement the writing-mode/text-orientation properties as defined up until this proposal. The discussion within the group has been relatively limited and I think we haven't heard enough from implementers that depend on these features. Apple? Microsoft? EPUB viewer vendors in Japan? Amazon? Getting that feedback is important I think. Regards, John Daggett Mozilla Japan [1] CSS3 Writing Modes ED https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3 [2] Elika's proposed change https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0060.html ​
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Jonathan Kew   Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:23:10 +0100

www-style > August 2015 > 0189.html

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 14:23:40 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 20/8/15 09:12, John Daggett wrote: > > Florian wrote: > > > > So, when the minutes[1] says: > > > > > > > Okay. We don't have Koji so I suggest we resolve on the > > > > mailing list. > > > > > > > > - Everyone on the call was in support of the proposal to create > > > > sideways-lr and sideways-rl in writing-mode, but all the > > > > interested parties weren't on the call, so a decision will > > > > occur on the mailing list. > > > > > > I'm good, and no objections doesn't seem to be seen on this ML so far. > > > > > > Can we say this is resolved now? > > > > > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0051.html > > > > I mentioned during the call that you were in favor, but it is John > > Daggett's opinion we're waiting for. > > No, I still don't think this is a good idea. It's exchanging complexity > of implementation for authoring model complexity and that's almost > always a poor choice in my opinion. I don't agree that the proposal being considered here would increase authoring model complexity. If anything, I'd say it offers authors a cleaner and more understandable model. We'd have three modes (horizontal-tb, sideways-lr and sideways-rl) that all lay out text in the same way, but with a ±90° rotation in the sideways-* cases. In all three cases, the text is laid out according to the conventions of horizontal writing, even if it is then rotated in its entirety. No question of glyph orientation within the line ever arises in these modes. And then there are the two vertical-* modes, which lay out text according to vertical writing-system rules. And for these, the text-orientation property may be used to override the glyph orientation when the default behavior is not suitable. The one thought that occurs to me is that perhaps sideways-lr and sideways-rl would be clearer if they were renamed to rotated-left and rotated-right, or something like that. > > Anyone involved in publishing here in Japan that I mention this to seems > baffled by this proposal to add sideways-lr and sideways-rl to the > writing-mode property. And I think implementors of EPUB viewers here are > frustrated at changes like this and the impact it will have on this spec > going to REC quickly. > > To summarize the proposal from Elika as I understand it: > > Current definition [1]: > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways-right | sideways-left | > sideways > > Authors use the writing-mode property to enable vertical text display > and the text-orientation property to override the orientation of text > within a line, when needed. > > Proposed change [2]: > > writing-mode: horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr | sideways-lr > | sideways-rl > text-orientation: mixed | upright | sideways > > CJK authors use vertical-rl while authors wanting vertical headings in > tables use either sideways-rl or sideways-lr. CJK authors use > text-orientation to override the orientation of text within a line but > text-orientation has no effect on authors using sideways-rl or > sideways-lr. Yes, though perhaps it's fairer to say that (for both the current and proposed models), text-orientation is only relevant to vertical-* writing modes. In horizontal writing modes (whether physically horizontal or rotated left/right) it has no effect. > > It seems to me this proposal is being driven by some complexities that > don't really exist in content, for example when the orientation of text > changes within a line: > > p { writing-mode: vertical-rl } > span.left { text-orientation: sideways-left } > > <p>This is a <span class=left>strange ball of beeswax</span></p> > > But how this sort of complexity is solved isn't really important. It > won't occur frequently in content so we can use implementation > experience to come up with better proposals in later levels of the spec. > Cluttering up the writing-mode property seems like a mistake to me and I don't see the sideways-* (or rotated-*) values as "cluttering up the writing-mode property"; ISTM they're very reasonable ways to express the ways people want to be able to render text. I'd guess that for CJK authors, the use of text-orientation:sideways will be virtually non-existent, as that simply isn't how these languages are written vertically. they have a well-established tradition of vertical-upright writing. This is entirely distinct from horizontal writing that is rotated by 90°; so why overload the writing-mode:vertical-* values to support both use cases, requiring the addition of the (messy, asymmetrical) text-orientation property for the rotated-horizontal-text case? The proposed change, IMO, offers authors a simpler model. > making this change will affect implementations that already implement > the writing-mode/text-orientation properties as defined up until this > proposal. Has anyone implemented text-orientation:sideways-left yet? Aside from that, the impact of the proposed change on existing implementations should be minimal, AFAICS. Regards, JK > > The discussion within the group has been relatively limited and I think > we haven't heard enough from implementers that depend on these features. > Apple? Microsoft? EPUB viewer vendors in Japan? Amazon? Getting that > feedback is important I think. > > Regards, > > John Daggett > Mozilla Japan > > [1] CSS3 Writing Modes ED > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3 > > [2] Elika's proposed change > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0060.html > > ​
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Shinyu Murakami   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:03:10 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0190.html

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 16:04:11 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote on 2015/08/20 23:23:10 > On 20/8/15 09:12, John Daggett wrote: > > > > Florian wrote: > > > > > > So, when the minutes[1] says: > > > > > > > > > Okay. We don't have Koji so I suggest we resolve on the > > > > > mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > - Everyone on the call was in support of the proposal to create > > > > > sideways-lr and sideways-rl in writing-mode, but all the > > > > > interested parties weren't on the call, so a decision will > > > > > occur on the mailing list. > > > > > > > > I'm good, and no objections doesn't seem to be seen on this ML so far. > > > > > > > > Can we say this is resolved now? > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0051.html > > > > > > I mentioned during the call that you were in favor, but it is John > > > Daggett's opinion we're waiting for. > > > > No, I still don't think this is a good idea. It's exchanging complexity > > of implementation for authoring model complexity and that's almost > > always a poor choice in my opinion. > > I don't agree that the proposal being considered here would increase authoring model complexity. If anything, I'd say it offers authors a cleaner and more understandable model. We'd have three modes (horizontal-tb, sideways-lr and sideways-rl) that all lay out text in the same way, but with a ±90° rotation in the sideways-* cases. In all three cases, the text is laid out according to the conventions of horizontal writing, even if it is then rotated in its entirety. No question of glyph orientation within the line ever arises in these modes. > > And then there are the two vertical-* modes, which lay out text according to vertical writing-system rules. And for these, the text-orientation property may be used to override the glyph orientation when the default behavior is not suitable. > > The one thought that occurs to me is that perhaps sideways-lr and sideways-rl would be clearer if they were renamed to rotated-left and rotated-right, or something like that. I agree with you except the last one. I think sideways-lr and sideways-rl are better than rotated-left and rotated-right, because consistent with vertical-lr/rl where lr/rl indicates the line stacking direction, and because if we use 'rotated' here, misunderstanding of physical directions that margin-top, etc. are also rotated will easily happen. > ... -- Shinyu Murakami CEO & Founder, Vivliostyle Inc. http://vivliostyle.com murakami@vivliostyle.com
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Florian Rivoal   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:19:06 +0200

www-style > August 2015 > 0206.html

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 22:19:35 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

> On 20 Aug 2015, at 16:23, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't agree that the proposal being considered here would increase authoring model complexity. If anything, I'd say it offers authors a cleaner and more understandable model. We'd have three modes (horizontal-tb, sideways-lr and sideways-rl) that all lay out text in the same way, but with a ±90° rotation in the sideways-* cases. In all three cases, the text is laid out according to the conventions of horizontal writing, even if it is then rotated in its entirety. No question of glyph orientation within the line ever arises in these modes. > > And then there are the two vertical-* modes, which lay out text according to vertical writing-system rules. And for these, the text-orientation property may be used to override the glyph orientation when the default behavior is not suitable. This is how I see it as well, and it seems quite natural to me that way. >> but >> text-orientation has no effect on authors using sideways-rl or >> sideways-lr. > > Yes, though perhaps it's fairer to say that (for both the current and proposed models), text-orientation is only relevant to vertical-* writing modes. In horizontal writing modes (whether physically horizontal or rotated left/right) it has no effect. Yes. Or using the jargon, the text-orientation property only applies to elements for which the computed value of the writing-mode property is vertical-*. > I'd guess that for CJK authors, the use of text-orientation:sideways will be virtually non-existent, as that simply isn't how these languages are written vertically. text-orientation:sideways should be used by CJK authors to market small piece of foreign language embedded in a their text. article { writing-mode: vertical-rl; text-orientation: upright; } article q:lang(en) { text-orientation: sideways. } >> But how this sort of complexity is solved isn't really important. It >> won't occur frequently in content so we can use implementation >> experience to come up with better proposals in later levels of the spec. >> Cluttering up the writing-mode property seems like a mistake to me and > > I don't see the sideways-* (or rotated-*) values as "cluttering up the writing-mode property"; ISTM they're very reasonable ways to express the ways people want to be able to render text. I think the original design is actually dirtier. We have 3 things to control with 2 properties: - block progression direction - glyph orientation - baseline orientation / inline progression direction In the original design, text-orientation:sideways-left not only changes the glyph orientation, it also flips the baseline (and the inline progression direction) 180degrees. That was needed for that design to work, but opens up the possibility for things we're not actually trying to do: inline changes of baseline orientation. With the new design, text-orientation, in the writing modes where it applies, only affects glyph orientation, and never does anything to the baseline orientation. It is therefore completely safe to change in the middle of an inline. The block progressing direction and the orientation of the baseline are tied together, and can only be set at the block level. I think it is cleaner. - Florian
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
John Daggett   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:32:36 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0209.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 06:39:14 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Jonathan Kew wrote: > I don't agree that the proposal being considered here would increase > authoring model complexity. If anything, I'd say it offers authors a > cleaner and more understandable model. We'd have three modes > (horizontal-tb, sideways-lr and sideways-rl) that all lay out text in > the same way, but with a ±90° rotation in the sideways-* cases. In all > three cases, the text is laid out according to the conventions of > horizontal writing, even if it is then rotated in its entirety. No > question of glyph orientation within the line ever arises in these > modes. I guess it boils down to this for me: for 99% of the users of the 'writing-mode' property, namely authors in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong laying out vertical text runs, the sideways-* values will be a confusing addition. As you describe you're basically mixing in the ability to rotate horizontal text layout into a property used to choose between horizontal and vertical layout systems. To do so won't be the end of the world but it will introduce unfortunate confusion. I do understand that this simplifies implementations details. You no longer need to be concerned about mixtures of sideways-left and sideways-right text in the same block. I just am concerned that we're adding values to a commonly-used property, 'writing-mode', for the sake of simplifying a less commonly used property, 'text-orientation'. Florian Rivoal wrote: > > I'd guess that for CJK authors, the use of text-orientation:sideways > > will be virtually non-existent, as that simply isn't how these > > languages are written vertically. > > text-orientation:sideways should be used by CJK authors to market small piece of foreign language embedded in a their text. > > article { > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > text-orientation: upright; > } > > article q:lang(en) { > text-orientation: sideways. > } I think both of these statements are off the mark. The initial value of 'text-orientation' is 'mixed', such that the contents of vertical text elements will be laid out based on UTR-50 default orientation data. So the natural default for vertical text is simply: article { writing-mode: vertical-rl; /* default text-orientation: kana/kanji are upright, latin is sideways */ } No need to use text-orientation or extra markup for small runs of Latin text. The text-orientation property provides an override to the default orientation in cases where a character might be used in either orientation, such as a symbol: <latin> <symbol> <latin> ==> sideways <kanji> <symbol> <kanji> ==> upright So its use would be infrequent but not "virtually non-existent". I really think we need more input from other implementers, specifically Apple, Microsoft and any other EPUB vendors who support already support vertical text. Murakami-san seems content with the proposed change. Other implementers, opinions? Regards, John Daggett Mozilla Japan ​
[css-writing-modes] proposed writing-mode: sideways-left and text-orientation: sideways
John Daggett   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:48:25 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0210.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 06:48:53 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

If 'sideways-lr' and 'sideways-rl' are added to 'writing-mode', I think the definition of 'text-orientation: sideways' needs to be updated also to always imply 'sideways-right'. John Daggett Mozilla Japan
Re: [css-writing-modes] proposed writing-mode: sideways-left and text-orientation: sideways
fantasai   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:01:52 -0700

www-style > August 2015 > 0211.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 07:02:20 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 08/20/2015 11:48 PM, John Daggett wrote: > If 'sideways-lr' and 'sideways-rl' are added to 'writing-mode', > I think the definition of 'text-orientation: sideways' needs > to be updated also to always imply 'sideways-right'. This makes sense to me. ~fantasai
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Florian Rivoal   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:13:11 +0200

www-style > August 2015 > 0213.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 08:13:41 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

> On 21 Aug 2015, at 08:32, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > Jonathan Kew wrote: > > > I don't agree that the proposal being considered here would increase > > authoring model complexity. If anything, I'd say it offers authors a > > cleaner and more understandable model. We'd have three modes > > (horizontal-tb, sideways-lr and sideways-rl) that all lay out text in > > the same way, but with a ±90° rotation in the sideways-* cases. In all > > three cases, the text is laid out according to the conventions of > > horizontal writing, even if it is then rotated in its entirety. No > > question of glyph orientation within the line ever arises in these > > modes. > > I guess it boils down to this for me: for 99% of the users of the > 'writing-mode' property, namely authors in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong > laying out vertical text runs, the sideways-* values will be a confusing > addition. CJK users of the writing-mode property can ignore these new values, as they are here to server other uses cases. If they do ignore them, the model is not changed for them horizontal-script users of the writing-mode property, on the other hand, will find it much easier to use, since it now has values that directly address their use cases. > I do understand that this simplifies implementations details. You no > longer need to be concerned about mixtures of sideways-left and > sideways-right text in the same block. I just am concerned that we're > adding values to a commonly-used property, 'writing-mode', for the sake > of simplifying a less commonly used property, 'text-orientation'. It not only simplifies the implementation of text-orientation, it also simplifies usage, as it is less commonly needed than before. > Florian Rivoal wrote: > > > > I'd guess that for CJK authors, the use of text-orientation:sideways > > > will be virtually non-existent, as that simply isn't how these > > > languages are written vertically. > > > > text-orientation:sideways should be used by CJK authors to market small piece of foreign language embedded in a their text. > > > > article { > > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > > text-orientation: upright; > > } > > > > article q:lang(en) { > > text-orientation: sideways. > > } > > I think both of these statements are off the mark. The initial value of > 'text-orientation' is 'mixed', such that the contents of vertical text > elements will be laid out based on UTR-50 default orientation data. So > the natural default for vertical text is simply: > > article { > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > /* default text-orientation: kana/kanji are upright, latin is sideways */ > } > > No need to use text-orientation or extra markup for small runs of Latin > text. "text-orientation: mixed" is a heuristic. It will most of the time, but importantly not always, do the right thing, as some punctuation characters can go both ways. If an CJK author knows their text is pure CJK, they should use text-orientation: upright. If they know that it is pure CJK, except for small runs of latin (or other horizontal script) text which are appropriately marked up, they should use upright on the CJK text, and sideways on the small runs. If they don't know, or if they know that the small runs are not marked up in a distinctive way, text-orientation: mixed will probably do a good enough job, but not a perfect one. All this is the same under the old and the new proposition. On the other hand, the old design required that the text-orientation property with the sideways-* values also be used for horizontal script authors. The situation is simplified, as they can now ignore this property when using the appropriate writing modes. > I really think we need more input from other implementers, specifically > Apple, Microsoft and any other EPUB vendors who support already support > vertical text. Murakami-san seems content with the proposed change. > Other implementers, opinions? This proposal was made in part due to the reluctance of implementors to implement sideways-left, so yes, it would be very interesting to hear what they think about this new one. - Florian
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Hiroshi Sakakibara   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:39:43 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0214.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 08:40:13 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

> I really think we need more input from other implementers, specifically > Apple, Microsoft and any other EPUB vendors who support already support > vertical text. Murakami-san seems content with the proposed change. > Other implementers, opinions? My company, BPS co. LTD., is developing an EPUB3 viewer, Cho-Tate-Gaki (it means super vertiacl layout), based on Blink. As the name tells, we did lots of modifications for Blink for beautiful Japanese typesetting. In addition, more than 100 thousand of EPUBs are already made and set to ebook companies' distributing servers. It means lots of writing modes related properties are already used in Japan. (I'm not sure the current situation in Taiwan and other contries.) My understanding is that the EPUB spec is referencing the newest CSS writing modes' spec. I heard that it might not affect to currently distributed EPUBs if 'sideways-rl/rl' are simply added to writing-mode property now. (I'm not sure but how about the effect to text-orientation property? text-orientation is also distributed already to treat U+00A9 to rotate 90 degrees) From e-book domain perspective, I want the spec to be stable. Can the above be opinion to consider the priority? --- skk On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:32:36 +0900 John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > Jonathan Kew wrote: > > > I don't agree that the proposal being considered here would increase > > authoring model complexity. If anything, I'd say it offers authors a > > cleaner and more understandable model. We'd have three modes > > (horizontal-tb, sideways-lr and sideways-rl) that all lay out text in > > the same way, but with a ±90° rotation in the sideways-* cases. In all > > three cases, the text is laid out according to the conventions of > > horizontal writing, even if it is then rotated in its entirety. No > > question of glyph orientation within the line ever arises in these > > modes. > > I guess it boils down to this for me: for 99% of the users of the > 'writing-mode' property, namely authors in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong > laying out vertical text runs, the sideways-* values will be a confusing > addition. As you describe you're basically mixing in the ability to > rotate horizontal text layout into a property used to choose between > horizontal and vertical layout systems. To do so won't be the end of the > world but it will introduce unfortunate confusion. > > I do understand that this simplifies implementations details. You no > longer need to be concerned about mixtures of sideways-left and > sideways-right text in the same block. I just am concerned that we're > adding values to a commonly-used property, 'writing-mode', for the sake > of simplifying a less commonly used property, 'text-orientation'. > > Florian Rivoal wrote: > > > > I'd guess that for CJK authors, the use of text-orientation:sideways > > > will be virtually non-existent, as that simply isn't how these > > > languages are written vertically. > > > > text-orientation:sideways should be used by CJK authors to market small > piece of foreign language embedded in a their text. > > > > article { > > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > > text-orientation: upright; > > } > > > > article q:lang(en) { > > text-orientation: sideways. > > } > > I think both of these statements are off the mark. The initial value of > 'text-orientation' is 'mixed', such that the contents of vertical text > elements will be laid out based on UTR-50 default orientation data. So > the natural default for vertical text is simply: > > article { > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > /* default text-orientation: kana/kanji are upright, latin is sideways */ > } > > No need to use text-orientation or extra markup for small runs of Latin > text. > > The text-orientation property provides an override to the default > orientation in cases where a character might be used in either > orientation, such as a symbol: > > <latin> <symbol> <latin> ==> sideways > <kanji> <symbol> <kanji> ==> upright > > So its use would be infrequent but not "virtually non-existent". > > I really think we need more input from other implementers, specifically > Apple, Microsoft and any other EPUB vendors who support already support > vertical text. Murakami-san seems content with the proposed change. > Other implementers, opinions? > > Regards, > > John Daggett > Mozilla Japan > > ? -- 榊原 寛 / Sakakibara Hiroshi (sakakibara.hiroshi@bpsinc.jp) 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 Web: http://www.bpsinc.jp/
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Hiroshi Sakakibara   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:50:22 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0215.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 08:52:06 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

> This proposal was made in part due to the reluctance of implementors to implement sideways-left, so yes, it would be very interesting to hear what they think about this new one. My company's developer says, the implementation becomes easy. But since we haven't met the situation to use the sideways-left, the priority to develop it is not so much high. (For example if we need to write sideways-left in table, it is enough to use transform, or something like that. The situation is rare.) --- skk On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:13:11 +0200 Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > > > On 21 Aug 2015, at 08:32, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > > > Jonathan Kew wrote: > > > > > I don't agree that the proposal being considered here would increase > > > authoring model complexity. If anything, I'd say it offers authors a > > > cleaner and more understandable model. We'd have three modes > > > (horizontal-tb, sideways-lr and sideways-rl) that all lay out text in > > > the same way, but with a ±90° rotation in the sideways-* cases. In all > > > three cases, the text is laid out according to the conventions of > > > horizontal writing, even if it is then rotated in its entirety. No > > > question of glyph orientation within the line ever arises in these > > > modes. > > > > I guess it boils down to this for me: for 99% of the users of the > > 'writing-mode' property, namely authors in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong > > laying out vertical text runs, the sideways-* values will be a confusing > > addition. > > CJK users of the writing-mode property can ignore these new values, as they > are here to server other uses cases. If they do ignore them, the model is not > changed for them > > horizontal-script users of the writing-mode property, on the other hand, will > find it much easier to use, since it now has values that directly address their > use cases. > > > I do understand that this simplifies implementations details. You no > > longer need to be concerned about mixtures of sideways-left and > > sideways-right text in the same block. I just am concerned that we're > > adding values to a commonly-used property, 'writing-mode', for the sake > > of simplifying a less commonly used property, 'text-orientation'. > > It not only simplifies the implementation of text-orientation, it also simplifies > usage, as it is less commonly needed than before. > > > Florian Rivoal wrote: > > > > > > I'd guess that for CJK authors, the use of text-orientation:sideways > > > > will be virtually non-existent, as that simply isn't how these > > > > languages are written vertically. > > > > > > text-orientation:sideways should be used by CJK authors to market small piece of foreign language embedded in a their text. > > > > > > article { > > > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > > > text-orientation: upright; > > > } > > > > > > article q:lang(en) { > > > text-orientation: sideways. > > > } > > > > I think both of these statements are off the mark. The initial value of > > 'text-orientation' is 'mixed', such that the contents of vertical text > > elements will be laid out based on UTR-50 default orientation data. So > > the natural default for vertical text is simply: > > > > article { > > writing-mode: vertical-rl; > > /* default text-orientation: kana/kanji are upright, latin is sideways */ > > } > > > > No need to use text-orientation or extra markup for small runs of Latin > > text. > > "text-orientation: mixed" is a heuristic. It will most of the time, but importantly not always, do the right thing, as some punctuation characters can go both ways. If an CJK author knows their text is pure CJK, they should use text-orientation: upright. If they know that it is pure CJK, except for small runs of latin (or other horizontal script) text which are appropriately marked up, they should use upright on the CJK text, and sideways on the small runs. If they don't know, or if they know that the small runs are not marked up in a distinctive way, text-orientation: mixed will probably do a good enough job, but not a perfect one. > > All this is the same under the old and the new proposition. > > > On the other hand, the old design required that the text-orientation property with the sideways-* values also be used for horizontal script authors. The situation is simplified, as they can now ignore this property when using the appropriate writing modes. > > > I really think we need more input from other implementers, specifically > > Apple, Microsoft and any other EPUB vendors who support already support > > vertical text. Murakami-san seems content with the proposed change. > > Other implementers, opinions? > > This proposal was made in part due to the reluctance of implementors to implement sideways-left, so yes, it would be very interesting to hear what they think about this new one. > > - Florian -- 榊原 寛 / Sakakibara Hiroshi (sakakibara.hiroshi@bpsinc.jp) 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 Web: http://www.bpsinc.jp/
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Jonathan Kew   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:51:52 +0100

www-style > August 2015 > 0216.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 08:52:22 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 21/8/15 09:39, Hiroshi Sakakibara wrote: >> I really think we need more input from other implementers, specifically >> Apple, Microsoft and any other EPUB vendors who support already support >> vertical text. Murakami-san seems content with the proposed change. >> Other implementers, opinions? > > My company, BPS co. LTD., is developing an EPUB3 viewer, Cho-Tate-Gaki > (it means super vertiacl layout), based on Blink. As the name tells, > we did lots of modifications for Blink for beautiful Japanese > typesetting. > > In addition, more than 100 thousand of EPUBs are already made and set > to ebook companies' distributing servers. It means lots of > writing modes related properties are already used in Japan. (I'm not > sure the current situation in Taiwan and other contries.) > > My understanding is that the EPUB spec is referencing the newest CSS > writing modes' spec. > > I heard that it might not affect to currently distributed EPUBs if > 'sideways-rl/rl' are simply added to writing-mode property now. This is correct; if the new sideways-* values for writing-mode are added, this has no effect whatsoever on existing usage of the vertical-* values. Japanese users can ignore the new values, which are not aimed at Japanese typesetting needs. > (I'm > not sure but how about the effect to text-orientation property? > text-orientation is also distributed already to treat U+00A9 to rotate > 90 degrees) There is also no effect on existing usage of text-orientation:upright or text-orientation:sideways-right within writing-mode:vertical-rl content; this will continue to work. In theory, existing usage of text-orientation:sideways-left (or text-orientation:sideways within writing-mode:vertical-lr content) would be affected, but AFAIK nobody has yet implemented these options so there isn't any existing usage. JK > > �From e-book domain perspective, I want the spec to be stable. > > Can the above be opinion to consider the priority? > > --- skk
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
Richard Ishida   Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:43:35 +0100

www-style > August 2015 > 0217.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 10:43:45 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 21/08/2015 07:32, John Daggett wrote: > guess it boils down to this for me: for 99% of the users of the > 'writing-mode' property, namely authors in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong > laying out vertical text runs, the sideways-* values will be a confusing > addition. As you describe you're basically mixing in the ability to > rotate horizontal text layout into a property used to choose between > horizontal and vertical layout systems. To do so won't be the end of the > world but it will introduce unfortunate confusion. i think it's incorrect to assume that 99% of the writing-mode users want to write in CJK characters. At the beginning of this discussion i was trying to write an article for content authors about how to do vertical text for CJK, but the questions i was getting in email and on twitter were all from people who wanted to know whether this would solve their problems for Latin or other normally horizontal scripts. They wanted to run the text sideways alongside something, either in a table heading or alongside a picture, etc. when i starting thinking about that, things seemed rather unnecessarily complex. if you use the old approach and want to run some Latin text from bottom to top in, say, a table heading you'd have to think around the mechanics a little to say th { writing-mode:vertical-lr; text-orientation: sideways-left; } In the new model, just th { writing-mode: sideways-lr; } seems much simpler and quite logical and straightforward to me, and seems to match the way Microsoft Word handles text too, which is a big plus for many users. but in addition to that, when applying the old model i found myself worrying about where start/end would now be, and whether the Latin text would wrap as expected, because i was led to overthink the mechanics. With the new model, that just seems straighforward. so i agree with Jonathan's points, and i think that the new model actually makes it easier for content authors to use, both for rotated horizontal scripts and for vertical CJK. ri
Re: [css-writing-modes] proposed writing-mode: sideways-left and text-orientation: sideways
Koji Ishii   Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:16:32 +0900

www-style > August 2015 > 0219.html

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 15:17:18 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:01 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 08/20/2015 11:48 PM, John Daggett wrote: > >> If 'sideways-lr' and 'sideways-rl' are added to 'writing-mode', >> I think the definition of 'text-orientation: sideways' needs >> to be updated also to always imply 'sideways-right'. >> > > This makes sense to me. Agreed, and I think Jonathan agreed on this point before too. /koji
Re: [css-writing-modes] proposed writing-mode: sideways-left and text-orientation: sideways
fantasai   Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:05:40 -0400

www-style > September 2015 > 0330.html

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2015 23:31:08 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 08/21/2015 11:16 AM, Koji Ishii wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:01 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote: > > On 08/20/2015 11:48 PM, John Daggett wrote: > > If 'sideways-lr' and 'sideways-rl' are added to 'writing-mode', > I think the definition of 'text-orientation: sideways' needs > to be updated also to always imply 'sideways-right'. > > > This makes sense to me. > > > Agreed, and I think Jonathan agreed on this point before too. This has been updated as follows: * sideways is defined as 90deg clockwise rotation always * sideways-right has been dropped; UAs may parse and compute it to sideways ~fantasai
Re: [css-writing-modes] Propose writing-mode: sideways-left
fantasai   Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:11:56 -0400

www-style > September 2015 > 0331.html

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2015 23:31:09 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

On 06/02/2015 03:00 PM, Koji Ishii wrote: > I'd like to propose: > > writing-mode: sideways-left > > which is equivalent to setting the two properties: > writing-mode: vertical-lr; > text-orientation: sideways-left; > > When this value is specified, I prefer to make the used value of > text-orientation to sideways-right, but I'm good not to if this is > controversial. Just to close on this, the CSSWG resolved to accept the proposal in http://www.w3.org/mid/55982414.1080905@inkedblade.net See minutes at http://www.w3.org/mid/CADhPm3u8Kc4qiW+bxQw3Eyq6Uu1=RFxSeCWCdSZCyeFOhO7Wew@mail.gmail.com ~fantasai