This mailing list is for technical discussion on Web Style Sheets

Elliott Sprehn | 26 Jul 2012 00:39

[css3-writing-modes] Proposal to unprefix writing mode keywords for width property

Now that both Webkit and Gecko have implementations of min-content, max-content, fill-available and fit-content for width (and neither for height), I propose we unprefix the keywords for width.

Note: Gecko unfortunately implemented an older spec as -moz-available instead of -moz-fill-available, so unprefixing should also bring both Gecko and Webkit into alignment.

Does anyone have any objections?

- E

headers

fantasai | 26 Jul 2012 01:11

Re: [css3-writing-modes] Proposal to unprefix writing mode keywords for width property

On 07/25/2012 03:39 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> Now that both Webkit and Gecko have implementations of min-content, max-content, fill-available and
fit-content for width (and
> neither for height), I propose we unprefix the keywords for width.
>
> Note: Gecko unfortunately implemented an older spec as -moz-available instead of
-moz-fill-available, so unprefixing should
> also bring both Gecko and Webkit into alignment.
>
> Does anyone have any objections?

Yes. The behavior of 'width' is that of the 'height' property in vertical
writing modes, so until that's also implemented and interoperable, I don't
think it's a good idea to remove the prefixes. In particular, behavior for
'fill-available' has been requested to change in the logical height dimension,
and that's not even specced yet.

Note that while Gecko doesn't implement vertical text, Webkit does.

~fantasai

headers

Alan Gresley | 29 Jul 2012 07:32

Re: [css3-writing-modes] Proposal to unprefix writing mode keywords for width property

On 26/07/2012 9:11 AM, fantasai wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 03:39 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
>> Now that both Webkit and Gecko have implementations of min-content,
>> max-content, fill-available and fit-content for width (and
>> neither for height), I propose we unprefix the keywords for width.
>>
>> Note: Gecko unfortunately implemented an older spec as -moz-available
>> instead of -moz-fill-available, so unprefixing should
>> also bring both Gecko and Webkit into alignment.
>>
>> Does anyone have any objections?
>
> Yes. The behavior of 'width' is that of the 'height' property in vertical
> writing modes, so until that's also implemented and interoperable, I don't
> think it's a good idea to remove the prefixes. In particular, behavior for
> 'fill-available' has been requested to change in the logical height
> dimension,
> and that's not even specced yet.
>
> Note that while Gecko doesn't implement vertical text, Webkit does.
>
> ~fantasai

WebKit does implement vertical writing mode but a test (Safari 5.1.7 and 
Chrome 20) with Kanji shows the glyphs are also rotated. The after side 
(baseline) is towards the logical left instead of the logical bottom.

--

-- 
Alan Gresley
http://css-3d.org/
http://css-class.com/