W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2007

Re: [CSS3 Line] line-stacking-ruby property definition

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:09:10 -0800
To: Sergey Malkin <sergeym@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20071220040910.GA18659@ridley.dbaron.org>

On Tuesday 2007-12-18 09:54 -0800, Sergey Malkin wrote:
> 
> In Ruby module, property 'line-stacking-ruby' referenced as a way
> to control whether Ruby text is taken into account for calculating
> line box. However, in current WG Line module draft I have access
> to this and some other properties marked as old and to be removed.
> 
> So, Paul (as editor of Ruby module) and David (as editor of line
> module), which spec is correct?
> 
>     - is this property considered not necessary and reference
>     should be removed from Ruby module, or
>     - is this property now become one of the values of
>     'line-box-contain' property and, again, Ruby module should be
>     edited accordingly

I have a very old action that hasn't been at the top of my list for
a while to edit the 'line-box-contain' property from
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-box-20010726/#the-line-box-contain
into css3-linebox and simultaneously fix up the description of the
line box model to be compatible with the model in CSS1 and CSS2.
It's sort of half-done.

In general, I'm not really a fan of either property.  Mode-switching
properties (one property that changes the meaning of another
property, as 'line-box-contain' does especially) don't fit with the
CSS cascading model very well, and they can make authoring
confusing.

Properties with values that authors might want to change part of but
leave part of are also somewhat problematic.  'line-box-contain' has
that problem too.

But I don't think we want the explosion of new properties that would
result from giving each of the values proposed for line-box-contain
(plus ruby) its own property.


I'd also comment that I think CSS should bias towards default values
being readable (even if occasionally ugly), and I'm skeptical of
having a default value that ruby should be ignored as part of
line-stacking.  I would think ruby should default towards expanding
the line if needed.  However, if the author provides enough line
spacing, then it shouldn't cause additional expansion.  (This would
suggest a model where line-height doesn't apply to ruby; otherwise
the line-height would inherit to the ruby itself, and the ruby being
offset would make the line expand even more.)

This is important for cases where, for example, the author specifies
line-height that provides sufficient spacing to fit the ruby in the
fonts on his machine, but where it turns out the spacing is
insufficient on other machines (e.g., mobile devices where the
default font is relatively closer to the minimum readable font size,
so that the ruby is closer in size to the main text).


I'm not sure if that's very helpful, but I think this stuff probably
needs more work before it's solid.

> And on general note, what are the plans for making these modules public?

I should move css3-linebox over to dev.w3.org now that we can do
that, when I have the chance.  It's not really in a usable state,
though.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2007 04:09:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:57 GMT