Discussion:
[css-writing-modes] Compatible proposal for a merge of direction and writing-mode
(too old to reply)
Dennis Heuer
2018-01-15 21:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello,

this actually can be changed because the change only behaves additive
(and deprecates three keywords, one property and an extra rule in 7.1):

https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/#propdef-direction
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/#propdef-writing-mode

The both properties direction and writing-mode:

value : ltr | rtl
value : horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr

The point is that the property writing-mode is in conflict with the
property direction, of which the ltr and rtl values are improper for
vertical line layout and have to be mapped quietly and unneccessarily.

My take is to only refer to the starting points, saving one property:
(This is what is explicitly specified for internal handling in 7.1)

value : left+top | right+top | top+left | top+right | ...

OR to refer to the directions:

value : right-down | left-down | down-right | down-left | ...

OR to choose the most informative and compact form:

value : ltr-td | rtl-td | td-ltr | td-rtl | ...

This one can support ltr, rtl and td as shortcuts for the first three
values.

Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Heuer
***@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de
fantasai
2018-01-15 22:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennis Heuer
Hello,
this actually can be changed because the change only behaves additive
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/#propdef-direction
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/#propdef-writing-mode
value : ltr | rtl
value : horizontal-tb | vertical-rl | vertical-lr
The point is that the property writing-mode is in conflict with the
property direction, of which the ltr and rtl values are improper for
vertical line layout and have to be mapped quietly and unneccessarily.
(This is what is explicitly specified for internal handling in 7.1)
The original 'writing-mode' property was in fact a combination of the
two properties: it set both 'direction' and 'block-direction'. This
was not a good idea, however, and so the current specification very
explicitly does *not* set the 'direction' property from within
'writing-mode' and does not provide a shorthand for the two properties.

The reason for this is that the 'direction' property is not really a
property of the document style, but of the document content. Authors
are strongly discouraged, as it says in the specification, from using
the 'direction' property and are encouraged to use the 'dir' attribute
in HTML. The raw text of the document will not display correctly in UAs
that don't support CSS, for example, if the 'dir' attribute is not set
correctly in the HTML.

The block flow direction, which 'writing-mode' sets, however, is a
stylistic choice. The author will choose whether to set it based on
the desired layout of the page. It belongs in CSS.

A property that set both would be misleading, since authors would use it
believing they are doing the right thing by being explicit, but in fact
potentially breaking pages which are relying on the 'dir' attribute for
the correct rendering of their text (since CSS overrides HTML).

This is why the properties are separate. It is most definitely not
something we want to change.

~fantasai
CSS Writing Modes specification editor
Dennis Heuer
2018-01-15 23:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:14:57 -0800
Post by fantasai
The reason for this is that the 'direction' property is not really a
property of the document style, but of the document content. Authors
are strongly discouraged, as it says in the specification, from using
the 'direction' property and are encouraged to use the 'dir' attribute
in HTML. The raw text of the document will not display correctly in
UAs that don't support CSS, for example, if the 'dir' attribute is
not set correctly in the HTML.
The block flow direction, which 'writing-mode' sets, however, is a
stylistic choice. The author will choose whether to set it based on
the desired layout of the page. It belongs in CSS.
Don't get the point! You made settings illogic only because you did not
want to place the red warning down to the property writing-mode? That's
all that is neccessary. And, what did you gain? You now have a lonely
property nobody shall use because of that red warning! What a strategy!
Merge back both properties, put the warning for HTML-writers to that
one property and let people set both 'dir' and 'writing mode' because
this is not a burden and will be the common tip in all blogs out there!

You think very strange here at W3C - very strange!

Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Heuer
***@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de
fantasai
2018-01-16 19:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennis Heuer
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:14:57 -0800
Post by fantasai
The reason for this is that the 'direction' property is not really a
property of the document style, but of the document content. Authors
are strongly discouraged, as it says in the specification, from using
the 'direction' property and are encouraged to use the 'dir' attribute
in HTML. The raw text of the document will not display correctly in
UAs that don't support CSS, for example, if the 'dir' attribute is
not set correctly in the HTML.
The block flow direction, which 'writing-mode' sets, however, is a
stylistic choice. The author will choose whether to set it based on
the desired layout of the page. It belongs in CSS.
Don't get the point! You made settings illogic only because you did not
want to place the red warning down to the property writing-mode? That's
all that is neccessary. And, what did you gain? You now have a lonely
property nobody shall use because of that red warning! What a strategy!
Merge back both properties, put the warning for HTML-writers to that
one property and let people set both 'dir' and 'writing mode' because
this is not a burden and will be the common tip in all blogs out there!
People are welcome to set 'dir' in their HTML. We do not want them setting
'direction' in their HTML, as it was a mistake for this to become part of
the style layer.
Post by Dennis Heuer
You think very strange here at W3C - very strange!
We take the time to understand the system and all of its implications
before we think, and you seem to just take your first impression. If
you spent as much time as I did investigating bidi, and usability, and
Web architecture, then you would not think it so strange.

~fantasai
Dennis Heuer
2018-01-16 21:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:51:18 -0800
Post by fantasai
Post by Dennis Heuer
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:14:57 -0800
Post by fantasai
The reason for this is that the 'direction' property is not really
a property of the document style, but of the document content.
Authors are strongly discouraged, as it says in the specification,
from using the 'direction' property and are encouraged to use the
'dir' attribute in HTML. The raw text of the document will not
display correctly in UAs that don't support CSS, for example, if
the 'dir' attribute is not set correctly in the HTML.
The block flow direction, which 'writing-mode' sets, however, is a
stylistic choice. The author will choose whether to set it based on
the desired layout of the page. It belongs in CSS.
Don't get the point! You made settings illogic only because you did
not want to place the red warning down to the property
writing-mode? That's all that is neccessary. And, what did you
gain? You now have a lonely property nobody shall use because of
that red warning! What a strategy! Merge back both properties, put
the warning for HTML-writers to that one property and let people
set both 'dir' and 'writing mode' because this is not a burden and
will be the common tip in all blogs out there!
People are welcome to set 'dir' in their HTML. We do not want them
setting 'direction' in their HTML, as it was a mistake for this to
become part of the style layer.
Like transition or compositing or ... You should be over this. css is
already something very different than the name tells. And, writing
vertically is a style in my eyes. Not less than compositing...

You do not read my emails! I also don't want the property direction.
That is very clear! But I see a use in getting away (compatible) from
'horizontal-tb' (urghhh) to 'ltr-tb' in those cases where css is
supported. You said that direction was split from writing-mode because
of possible missing css support. This is talking void to me. If css
support is not there, then both properties are not supported. If css
support is there, both properties are supported. So, aehh, whatfor was
the split?

And what about the non-HTML cases? The warning is only for HTML? And if
(and only if) setting the writing direction with css was a mistake, why
the property direction at all. Why you didn't just change the keywords
for writing-mode? Are there still cases? And why those cases need two
properties. You did not explain. Instead, you wrote illogics! And that's
why you get those answers! This is nothing about me! My solution is
still the only one speaking sense here and also not a problem.

However, you do not reply to what I wrote. Actually, you don't seem to
get the sense! I won't bother anymore...
Post by fantasai
Post by Dennis Heuer
You think very strange here at W3C - very strange!
We take the time to understand the system and all of its implications
before we think, and you seem to just take your first impression. If
you spent as much time as I did investigating bidi, and usability, and
Web architecture, then you would not think it so strange.
~fantasai
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Heuer
***@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de

Loading...