W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Comments on CSS3: Text LC

From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:11:52 -0500
Message-Id: <v03102802b9e22a43bb1a@[66.44.69.47]>
To: www-style@w3.org

Bert Bos wrote to <www-style@w3.org> on 25 October 2002 in "Re: Comments on
CSS3: Text LC" (<mid:15801.38539.46298.127786@lanalana.inria.fr>):

> [...] I think 9px is
> probably correct. If you have a 200dpi display, 9 dots would look like
> a 3pt letter. The screen would be good enough that you could take a
> magnifying glass and read the text, but that is probably not what you
> want. You probably want at least 18 dots, i.e., 9px.

Given excellent output resolution, a person with unimpaired vision can
easily read text set at 6pt.

> > [Should 'min-font-size' and 'max-font-size' apply
> > generally, not only when 'text-align-last' is 'size'?]
>
> Yes, that makes sense. It would need a modification of the font
> selection algorithm and the property would then probably be better
> placed in the Fonts module. Worth considering, I think.

I'm all for the idea.

> The ellipsis character usually looks better than three full stops, but
> not all browsers know the character.

It is more a font shortfall than a browser shortfall.

> But I agree that, no matter how
> we write it in the spec, we should make it explicit what the initial
> value of 'text-overflow-ellipsis' is: the single ellipsis character or
> three dots. I'd vote for the single character.

That is a compatibility character, which I would think unsuitable for
promotion in a Recommendation.

> > | Name: text-underline-position
> >
> > Everywhere else a value for automatic selection is called "auto", here it's
> > "auto-pos", any particular reason for that decision?
>
> That is because 'auto' is already a value on 'text-underline-color'
> and the shorthand 'text-underline' would become hard to interpret if
> 'auto' could mean either auto color or auto position.

I disagree that 'text-underline' declarations would become hard to
interpret.  In any case, "text-underline: auto" is no worse than "font:
normal 1em serif", with its term 'normal' applying to three constituent
properties.

> Though I think it is not in fact ambiguous, just harder. Hmm, maybe
> I'm changing my mind: 'auto' might well be better than 'auto-pos'.

'Auto' is better than 'auto-pos': the latter is unfamiliar and longer.

> 'Linefeed-treatment' could be a problem. The 'auto' value will
> automatically do the right thing, but if you explicitly set it to
> 'treat-as-space', any Thai text in that element will look wrong.
> (There should be no spaces in Thai.)

The chances are good that an author including Thai passages will know not
to use "linefeed-treatment: treat-as-space".  The chances are good that a
user with a style sheet with "linefeed-treatment: treat-as-space" will not
notice anything out of place when viewing Thai text.

I tell you what, Bert: when somebody complains about this problem either
here or on some other list or group, I'll buy you a bottle of Singha.  If,
two years after CSS3 Text goes Recommendation, nobody has complained, you
buy me a dish of spicy eggplant with basil.  You can even call it
"aubergine".

--
Etan Wexler <mailto:ewexler@stickdog.com>
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 18:52:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:17 GMT