Japanese text rotated 90 degrees

[xfq]

Japanese text is sometimes rotated 90 degrees in some official documents. I wonder if it's valuable to document this in jlreq (especially about how 欧文/約物/ルビ/圏点 work in this case)?

See https://github.com/w3c/type-samples/issues/96 for an example. There is also a feature request in CSSWG: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4921

[gminky]

※　"Japanese text rotated 90 degrees" is called Rotate Asian characters 270° in MS Word. 　But, Ichitaro doesn't support "Japanese text rotated 90 degrees".

[macnmm]

My understanding of this phenomenon is that it is simply about the optimum page orientation for vertical being the same as a rotated optimum for horizontal. Using landscape for vertical yields all the benefits for line length as you get by portrait for horizontal line layout. Mixed layout on the same page does appear strange, but makes a certain kind of sense.

As far as this changing any other vertical text conventions, I have not heard of any. Kenten etc would be the same as normal vertical text.

[himorin]

seeking information (law etc.) and asking current situations, I've noticed:

• there was an order to use horizontal writing with ltr for documents around 1955
• discussion on-going for official gazette (gov) in horizontal writing. Rotated parts are not rotating per character, but rotating per block, so no special care for punctuation marks is required.
• for such presentation, especially for official gazette (gov), paper printed version is the only official, and I felt no desire to reproduce such design on the web. (so I've terminated my research)

[macnmm]

Interesting. But why continue with vertical text in this manner? What advantage does vertical layout confer upon such content? Knowing this would help understand the value of vertical text to the various market segments...

[himorin]

As far as I know, it's just following to traditional custom.

• several local governments are now using horizontal-lr for (most of?) all official documents including local laws (e.g. Wakayama Pref. horizontal-lr 2001/Dec/21, applied from 2002/Apr/1)
• Courts had switched to horizontal-lr for all documents including judgements (e.g. supreme court) from 2001
• In original orders to use horizontal-lr for official documents (e.g. 1952 cabinet notice no.16, MIC notice no.1 2001, see p6 no 16-6, Yokosuka city), some exceptions are listed. Usually, ones specified by law, ones specified by other public organizations, traditional items like certificate, are included.
• even in national diet, there are official documents of proposed law in horizontal-lr (e.g. House of Councillors, 201st, No.20, links to PDF at bottom)
• official gazette (gov) and some Official Journals are regulated to include laws in their original format, so text of laws are included by rotating per block. In official gazette (gov), laws are (originally) in vertical-tb and could be included as-is, but ministerial ordinances are usually in horizontal-lr and will be included by rotating per block.

[macnmm]

Interesting that this implies directionality is legally distinct in terms of the content. That changing to horizontal could result in differences in the text, so quoting originally vertical judgments must remain vertical (with all the original composition) within the horizontal larger document. But for the web, it should be possible to mix these and display them in their normal orientation.

[frivoal]

so quoting originally vertical judgments must remain vertical (with all the original composition)

I would have expected something like that, but as far as I can see from examples that have been shared, the quoted vertical parts are styled as the surrounding text (except for their verticalness / rotation). Lines are also rewrapped to fit the location. It's not clear to me that anything other than the orientation and the text is being preserved.

[gminky]

実際には、一部だけの回転の方が多く現れそうです。 そして何より、法律は、最小限の範囲内で改正するという建前があるために、また、改正対象が不明確になることから、法律において、単純な一括での横書き化は、考えがたいです。 条例等でも、本来、一括での横書き化は、不適切との指摘があります。 cf. a、b

[himorin]

so quoting originally vertical judgments must remain vertical (with all the original composition) Lines are also rewrapped to fit the location. It's not clear to me that anything other than the orientation and the text is being preserved.

I'm still asking for information to whom should be familiar to these (several points), but for quick answer for now (but I feel weak), it is common to refer items and sections with words like '左記' (listed in the left side of the document), '上欄' (items in upper panel) etc. and that could be one reason to keep orientation of character.

(I think it's not for JLreq:'future', but 'question' is the right label?)

[xfq]

(I think it's not for JLreq:'future', but 'question' is the right label?)

I think question is for something we don't want to write in the jlreq document (like #212), but future is something we might want to write in the future. So far, I have not seen (clear) reasons for not writing this into the jlreq document.

[r12a]

I added the question label, since i think we are dicsussing the question of whether sideways vertical text is needed.

The 'future' label is not incompatible: it simply indicates (for now) that any conclusion arising here will be for a future version of jlreq.