Re: [CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
On 02/07/2014 09:57 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote: Thanks, looks great! Just one nit: HL1 etc. are not rules. UAX9 referes to the HLs as "clauses". So, the references to them should be something like "clause HLx of [UAX9]". Fixed! ~fantasai ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
RE: [CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
> After a bit more discussion with fantasai, the intent of "dual-meaning" in > this context > is "both directions", but I thought it means "either. direction" > Maybe it's better to use different wording that indicates "both directions" > better? And we've fixed this. /koji ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: [CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
On 12/26/2013 05:58 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote: Hixie filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24006 on Writing Modes in the beginning of December, and I added some comments there. It does not seem to have been addressed yet. Thanks for punting that to the ML. Wrt the paragraph beginning "In general...", it has been revised: # In CSS, the paragraph embedding level must be set (following rule HL1) # according to the direction property of the paragraph’s containing # block rather than by the heuristic given in steps P2 and P3 of the # Unicode algorithm. There is, however, one exception: when the # computed unicode-bidi of the paragraph’s containing block is # 'plaintext', the Unicode heuristics in P2 and P3 are used as # described in [UAX9], without the HL1 override. Wrt referring to the HL* rules, the bidi spec does not appear to require such references, only that modifications to the algorithm conform to those rules. However I have added the references as you request to help clarify the intent. Wrt using "must" everywhere, whether one agrees or disagrees with the style, it is not a habit of the CSS specs to do so, and statements without the modifier are nonetheless normative per http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-writing-modes/#conventions > is "the bidi control codes assigned to the end" defined anywhere? Yes, the control codes are defined under the various unicode-bidi values [..] But I agree that some sort of reference is needed. Since this sentence is only a few paragraphs below the section that defines them, I haven't added a link. But all of them are now talking about rule HL3, so this will help create that correspondance. I now realize, however, that the spec does not make it 100% clear for isolate-override whether it "combines" the isolate on the outside of the override or vice-versa. This is now specified explicitly. Comment #2 is handled separately, see thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0267.htm Updated ED: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes/ Please let me know if this sufficiently addresses the comment. ~fantasai ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: [CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
On Feb 7, 2014, at 0:02, fantasai wrote:
>>> 6.2 second paragraph (after the list of four "flow-relative directions" --
>>> block-end, block-start, etc.)
>>> "Where unambiguous (or dual-meaning), the terms start and end are used in
>>> place of block-start/inline-start and
>>> block-end/inline-end, respectively."
>>>
>>> {COMMENT: "unambiguous" is the opposite of "dual-meaning" -- "dual meaning"
>>> means "ambiguous"; do you mean the following?
>>> (if so it's o.k. to eliminate the stuff in parentheses altogether):}
>>
>> Fixed.
>
> Similarly, this is an incorrect edit. The intent is the opposite
> of "ambiguous" in the sense of "lacking clearness or definiteness".
> If the intent is clear from context OR if the intent encompasses
> both meanings, then the ambiguous terms start/end are allowed to
> be used. I have removed the parentheses to make this clear.
After a bit more discussion with fantasai, the intent of “dual-meaning” in this
context is “both directions”, but I thought it means “either. direction”
Maybe it’s better to use different wording that indicates “both directions”
better?
/koji
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: [CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
On 01/27/2014 05:34 PM, Koji Ishii wrote:
On Dec 21, 2013, at 20:39, CE Whitehead mailto:cewcat...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
4.3
"alphabetic
The alphabetic baseline is assumed to be at the under margin edge.
"central
The central baseline is assumed to be halfway between the under and over margin
edges of the box. "
=>
"alphabetic
The alphabetic baseline is assumed to be at the under-margin edge.
"central
The central baseline is assumed to be halfway between the under- and over-margin
edges of the box. "
{COMMENT: normally when you use two words to modify a single word, as when "under
margin", "over margin" modify the word,
"edge" or "edges", then it is customary to join the two modifying words with a
hyphen.}
Fixed.
Actually, this is an incorrect edit. I've reverted it. Under and
over are in this case used as adjectives, and are not part of
the word "margin". This follows the pattern of "left margin" as
opposed to "left-margin".
6.2 second paragraph (after the list of four "flow-relative directions" --
block-end, block-start, etc.)
"Where unambiguous (or dual-meaning), the terms start and end are used in place
of block-start/inline-start and
block-end/inline-end, respectively."
{COMMENT: "unambiguous" is the opposite of "dual-meaning" -- "dual meaning" means
"ambiguous"; do you mean the following?
(if so it's o.k. to eliminate the stuff in parentheses altogether):}
Fixed.
Similarly, this is an incorrect edit. The intent is the opposite
of "ambiguous" in the sense of "lacking clearness or definiteness".
If the intent is clear from context OR if the intent encompasses
both meanings, then the ambiguous terms start/end are allowed to
be used. I have removed the parentheses to make this clear.
~fantasai
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: [CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
On Jan 27, 2014, at 17:34, Koji Ishii
mailto:kojii...@gluesoft.co.jp>> wrote:
On Dec 21, 2013, at 20:39, CE Whitehead
mailto:cewcat...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
6.2
inline-start
"Nominally the side from which text of its inline base direction will start.
For boxes with a used direction value of ltr, this means the line-left side.
For boxes with a used direction value of rtl, this means the line-right side. "
=>
"The side of a box from which text will start. For boxes with a used direction
value of ltr, this means the line-left side. For boxes with a used direction
value of rtl, this means the line-right side. "
?
{COMMENT: This text is unclear to me; not sure what you mean by "its" -- the
box's?; I am not sure thus how to reword "inline base direction" -- so I left
this phrase out though you probably need something. Also do you need to say
"Nominally"? Because "nominally" does not mean anything to me in this sentence,
though normally "nominally" is defined as "in name" -- but I cannot see saying
this here; it just seems to not be the right word. Also finally, and I know
this is a dumb question, but why can the inline--start never be at the top or
the bottom, when the lines run top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top? The diagram
seems to suggest that inline-start can be at the bottom or top.}
Please allow me to work on this later.
Fixed.
/koji
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: [CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
On Dec 21, 2013, at 20:39, CE Whitehead
mailto:cewcat...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
4.3
"alphabetic
The alphabetic baseline is assumed to be at the under margin edge.
"central
The central baseline is assumed to be halfway between the under and over
margin edges of the box. "
=>
"alphabetic
The alphabetic baseline is assumed to be at the under-margin edge.
"central
The central baseline is assumed to be halfway between the under- and
over-margin edges of the box. "
{COMMENT: normally when you use two words to modify a single word, as when
"under margin", "over margin" modify the word, "edge" or "edges", then it is
customary to join the two modifying words with a hyphen.}
Fixed.
6.2
inline-start
"Nominally the side from which text of its inline base direction will start.
For boxes with a used direction value of ltr, this means the line-left side.
For boxes with a used direction value of rtl, this means the line-right side. "
=>
"The side of a box from which text will start. For boxes with a used direction
value of ltr, this means the line-left side. For boxes with a used direction
value of rtl, this means the line-right side. "
?
{COMMENT: This text is unclear to me; not sure what you mean by "its" -- the
box's?; I am not sure thus how to reword "inline base direction" -- so I left
this phrase out though you probably need something. Also do you need to say
"Nominally"? Because "nominally" does not mean anything to me in this sentence,
though normally "nominally" is defined as "in name" -- but I cannot see saying
this here; it just seems to not be the right word. Also finally, and I know
this is a dumb question, but why can the inline--start never be at the top or
the bottom, when the lines run top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top? The diagram
seems to suggest that inline-start can be at the bottom or top.}
Please allow me to work on this later.
6.2 second paragraph (after the list of four "flow-relative directions" --
block-end, block-start, etc.)
"Where unambiguous (or dual-meaning), the terms start and end are used in place
of block-start/inline-start and block-end/inline-end, respectively."
{COMMENT: "unambiguous" is the opposite of "dual-meaning" -- "dual meaning"
means "ambiguous"; do you mean the following? (if so it's o.k. to eliminate the
stuff in parentheses altogether):}
Fixed.
6.3 Line-relative directions
Figure 15, Figure 16
{COMMENT: is it possible to have more space between these two figures?}
Fixed.
/koji
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
[CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
Hi. A few more proofreading nits on http://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/
From: CE Whitehead
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 16:08:07 -0500
> . . .
> From: fantasai
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:07:20 -0800
>> The CSS WG has published a Last Call Working Draft of CSS Writing Modes
>> Level 3:
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/
>> . . .
>> . . .
> I have a proofreading comment on the text in Example 1 in Section 2.2
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/#unicode-bidi).
>"For example, where is a forced paragraph break the bidi ordering is
>identical
> between
>
> and
> . . .
> "
> for all values of unicode-bidi on inline elements and "
> Should not this text read the following --
> =>
> "For example, where is a forced paragraph break the bidi ordering is
> identical
> between
>
> and
>
> for all values of unicode-bidi on inline elements and "
> ?
> {COMMENT: I am confused by this example as I would normally expect the
> element to
> close before the element. I am sure you meant to do so here.}
> . . .
Here are my additional comments:
* * *
4.3
"alphabetic
The alphabetic baseline is assumed to be at the under margin edge.
"central
The central baseline is assumed to be halfway between the under and over
margin edges of the box. "
=>
"alphabetic
The alphabetic baseline is assumed to be at the under-margin edge.
"central
The central baseline is assumed to be halfway between the under- and
over-margin edges of the box. "
{COMMENT: normally when you use two words to modify a single word, as when
"under margin", "over margin" modify the word, "edge" or "edges", then it is
customary to join the two modifying words with a hyphen.}
* * *
6.2
inline-start
"Nominally the side from which text of its inline base direction will start.
For boxes with a used direction value of ltr, this means the line-left side.
For boxes with a used direction value of rtl, this means the line-right side. "
=>
"The side of a box from which text will
start. For boxes with a used direction value of ltr, this means the
line-left side. For boxes with a used direction value of rtl, this means
the line-right side. "
?
{COMMENT: This text is unclear to me; not sure what you mean by "its" -- the
box's?; I am not sure thus how to reword "inline base direction" -- so I left
this phrase out though you probably need something. Also do you need to say
"Nominally"? Because "nominally" does not mean anything to me in this sentence,
though normally "nominally" is defined as "in name" -- but I cannot see saying
this here; it just seems to not be the right word. Also finally, and I know
this is a dumb question, but why can the inline--start never be at the top or
the bottom, when the lines run top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top? The diagram
seems to suggest that inline-start can be at the bottom or top.}
* * *
6.2 second paragraph (after the list of four "flow-relative directions" --
block-end, block-start, etc.)
"Where unambiguous (or dual-meaning), the terms start and end are used in place
of block-start/inline-start and block-end/inline-end, respectively."
{COMMENT: "unambiguous" is the opposite of "dual-meaning" -- "dual meaning"
means "ambiguous"; do you mean the following? (if so it's o.k. to eliminate the
stuff in parentheses altogether):}
=>
"Where unambiguous (that is, where not dual-meaning), the terms start and end
are used in place of block-start/inline-start and block-end/inline-end,
respectively."
BETTER STILL IS =>
"Where unambiguous, the terms start
and end are used in place of block-start/inline-start and
block-end/inline-end, respectively."
* * *
6.3 Line-relative directions
Figure 15, Figure 16
{COMMENT: is it possible to have more space between these two figures?}
* * *
If I have any more comments before the 24th, I will send them.
Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcat...@hotmail.com
[CSSWG][css-writing-modes] Last Call for Comments on CSS3 Writing Modes
The CSS WG has published a Last Call Working Draft of CSS Writing Modes Level 3: http://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/ CSS Writing Modes Level 3 defines CSS handling of various international writing modes, such as left-to-right (e.g. Latin or Indic), right-to-left (e.g. Hebrew or Arabic), bidirectional (e.g. mixed Latin and Arabic) and vertical (e.g. Asian scripts). Recent changes are listed at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css-writing-modes-3-20131126/#changes Please send any comments to the www-style mailing list, , and please, prefix the subject line with [css-writing-modes] (as I did on this message). The deadline for comments is ** 24 December 2013 ** Please let us know if you need an extension, so that we know to wait for your comments. For the CSS WG, ~fantasai
