- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2018 23:34:43 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Consider adding a third value (skip?) for text-decoration-skip-ink`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: text-decoration-skip-ink only takes 2 values, none and auto with auto being default` * `RESOLVED: add normative text that states the auto property forces the UA to add the appropriate level of skipping` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Consider adding a third value (skip?) for text-decoration-skip-ink<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2818<br> <dael> Rossen_: We wanted xidorn on the call for this<br> <dael> Rossen_: Who wants to summerize?<br> <dael> fantasai: This is Text-decoration-skip. Issue is we had resolved on auto and none values, but there wasn't an on value<br> <dael> fantasai: If auto means platform that will in some cases not skip. If author wants skipping being able to say on should be separate. Otherwise auto means on and loses ability to be auto.<br> <myles> q+<br> <dael> fantasai: Proposal is add a new value that means please skip. I propose skip-ink for a name<br> <dael> fantasai: Reason is we might want shorthand in the future so skip values can be combined without ambig<br> <tantek> regrets+<br> <myles> is Xidorn here? The whole reason we're discussing this again is to get his input<br> <dael> florian: sgtm. I remember related topics were discussed, tried to look. May have missed something, but found that if we have this it should not skip on strike-through. Agreed never skip on strike-through<br> <dael> fantasai: right<br> <xidorn> myles: I am<br> <dael> florian: Other then shorthand convo couldn't find anything against this<br> <dael> xidorn: myles asked for my opinion. I commented in the github and I don't think I'm the one that raised this. Prob. emilio. I didn't have issue with auto and none but having skip-ink is fine. As long as we don't use 'all' or something<br> <myles> can we come back to to this when my micorophone is working?<br> <dael> Rossen_: myles, what would you like to say and why can't we hear you?<br> <dael> myles: If we wanted 3 values it would be because obey platofrm and do skip-ink would be distinct.<br> <dael> myles: Last time we discussed MS said wanted this on by default. If yes all major platforms would have skip-ink same as auto so if yes we donn't need 3rd value<br> <dael> fantasai: If we have on and off as 2 values auto should be clear what it does<br> <dael> myles: Happy to call what you want<br> <dael> xidorn: Auto still makes sense. It can depend on how impl does. Impl can decide what script to skip.<br> <dael> fantasai: If you skip on some and not others it's not on.<br> <dael> myles: That's true because typographical sense. Some scripts should never skip<br> <dael> Rossen_: There are casess to optimize for not skipping. Like for particular font size. There's diminishing retern for skipping on smaller font sizes.<br> <dael> Rossen_: If I get xidorn that's a bit more we can take different heuristics on when to skip but in general skipping in auto should be skipping. Is that right xidorn ?<br> <dael> xidorn: yeah<br> <dael> fantasai: If there's any magic under the scenes that's auto and that's not eq. to on. On is always and if author wants they should get it<br> <dael> myles: Opposite view is typographically the on value is bad to use and no one should use it<br> <dael> Rossen_: And for back compat in cases...for platforms that don't have feature impl then auto is great for default<br> <dael> florian: We're trying to resolve now is that the auto can mean different levels of skipping but not no skipping at all. Is that what we're trying to say?<br> <dael> Rossen_: Kind of. And for a platform that doesn't support skipping<br> <dael> florian: Sure, then you don't support the value so no skipping is a fallback<br> <dael> fantasai: There are cases where skipping and not skipping the heuristic of the browser might not be what the person wants. If you have arabic and position underline so it's exactly with the dots then not skipping becomes and issue. I don't htink it makes sense to say the UA can decide but the author can't<br> <dael> florian: The always-on auto is bad for a universal selector but if you're smart if can be fine<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: Agree with fantasai there should be ability of authors to override heuristics. Maybe one solution is to make it clear the value is an override or force by the name. Make it clear it's not what you should normally use.<br> <dael> florian: I think auto and skip-ink are reasonable<br> <dael> Rossen_: let's see if can resolve on...<br> <dael> florian: non, auto and skip-ink<br> <dael> s/non/none<br> <AmeliaBR> So it would be `text-decoration-skip-ink: skip-ink` ?<br> <florian> AmeliaBR: yes, for the sake of when we have a short hand of many different kinds of skipping<br> <dael> Rossen_: Proposal: 3 value property which is text-decoration-skip-ink: none|auto|skip-ink(or skip)<br> <florian> s/short hand/shorthand/<br> <dael> Rossen_: We we care about skip/skip-ink or can we ignore for now?<br> <dael> fantasai: I think resolve now<br> <dael> myles: Shouldn't be a value where browser doesn't have ability to make your text not ugly<br> <dael> florian: Don't you think author might know better in some cases?<br> <dael> Rossen_: Author doesn't know device and settings so it's hard to predict this<br> <dael> Rossen_: I sympathize with myles on this one<br> <dael> Rossen_: Start with auto and none and if when this takes off and there's a huge degree of requests for skip-ink we can add it. Removing it is harder.<br> <florian> works for me. If we have two values, it should be none and auto.<br> <dael> Rossen_: So back to the two values none|auto with auto default<br> <dael> myles: Great idea. If goal is let users fix browser heuristics we'll hear from users if heuristics are no good. Then it's a great time to add the value<br> <dael> xidorn: I agree with myles . Oncce we have more feedback from users on use cases we may revise even differently then three keywords<br> <dael> Rossen_: Objections to resolve text-decoration-skip-ink only takes 2 values, none and auto with auto being default<br> <dael> RESOLVED: text-decoration-skip-ink only takes 2 values, none and auto with auto being default<br> <dael> florian: Do we try and craft spec wording to mean that auto is for typographic smart, but not do nothing. not supporting we don't need to take into definition of property<br> <AmeliaBR> Current definition is `auto`: UA should skip over where glyphs are drawn<br> <dael> Rossen_: Levels of not supporting. You support it but for some devices you want this offer for battery.<br> <dael> florian: If you use @supports text-decoration-skip-ink: auto can you expect some level of skipping?<br> <dael> Rossen_: I think answer should be yes<br> <dael> Rossen_: myles ?<br> <dael> myles: Auto is meant ot let browsers have freedom. Spec can desc freedom<br> <dael> florian: Freedom, but not to not skip at all<br> <dael> myles: That's fair<br> <dael> fantasai: Needs to be clear. Currently initial value means you can not skip. If we say that's not possible we should be explicit about that<br> <dael> myles: My thought is if MS thinks this is right we can put it in spec<br> <dael> Rossen_: Once we have support for the property having it on by default is the path forward. We would support that<br> <dael> Rossen_: Additional resolution to make those edits?<br> <myles> s/auto property/auto value/<br> <dael> Rossen_: Objections to adding normative text that states the auto property forces the UA to add the appropriate level of skipping?<br> <dael> RESOLVED: add normative text that states the auto property forces the UA to add the appropriate level of skipping<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2818#issuecomment-418914796 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:34:45 UTC