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

RE: CSS3 Text - Edit suggestions

From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:39:04 -0800
Message-ID: <49C257E2C13F584790B2E302E021B6F90ECD1C96@winse-msg-01.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: <www-style@w3.org>, <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>

See inline below


> 2. Section 4. Line Breaking (minor editing...grammar)
>
> "For most scripts, in the absence of hyphenation a line break only
> occurs at word boundaries. Many writing systems use spaces or
> punctuation to explicitly separate words. Normally line break
> opportunities can be identified..."

...that seems to imply that standard line breaking in CJK text is
abnormal... I'd rather not make this change.
[paulnel: Please look at your grammar and fix it then.]


> 7. Section 6.2 - Remove "Where do scripts like Tamil fit in?". Tamil and
> other similar scripts go under the "clustered" classification.

As I said before, I've never seen Tamil justify as "clustered" -- only as
inter-word. If you have examples of Tamil justifying as "clustered", then
I'll remove the question; otherwise I'd rather leave it as an open issue
for now.

[paulnel: your newspaper links show that Tamil has expansion between clusters.]

> 8. Previous mail indicated "flex points" might be replace by "expansion
> opportunities".

Yep. I was planning to make that change as soon as I got home this afternoon...
It's checked in now.

[paulnel: Thanks!]

> 9. Section 7. Spacing. I find this section confusing. Can you provide an
> example to illustrate the usage?

I'm /guessing/ you mean the <spacing-limit> definition.

The first paragraph says that

1. letter-spacing: 2pt 1pt 3pt;
    means optimum=2pt, min=1pt, max=3pt

2. letter-spacing: 2pt 3pt;
    means optimum=2pt, min=2pt, max=2pt

3. letter-spacing: 2pt;
    means optimum=2pt, min=2pt, max=2pt

(#3 is mandated by CSS1 and CSS2. Other than that, I'm not partial
  to the syntax.)

The second paragraph says that

1. Given computed values of optimum=2px and min=3px,
    min is reset to 2px.
2. Given computed values of optimum=2px and max=1px,
    max is reset to 2px.

Now that I think about it, it might make more sense to give precedence
to the minimum and maximum constraints, just like with min/max-width.

[paulnel: still wondering how the CSS author will have any idea how to set the optimum value. Typically the optimal value is the value in the font created by the type designer. When letter spacing or word spacing is set a value of something like "150%" is normally set by the appication to control the word spacing or tracking. I would like for Steve Zilles to chime in here as this construct seems cluncky to me.]

> 11. Section 8.1 - After having some user scenarios provided by some
> on-line text processing applications, we might need to reconsider the
> ability to have multiple underlines applied, for example. In the case of
> a misspelled underlined word we want the underline to remain, with a
> different color wavy line for the queue for the misspelling. Might need
> some discussion on this at the F2F meeting. We want to be pragmatic, but
> not block a common use scenario.

I replied to this issue earlier. AFAIK, no previous CSS spec or CSS3 Text
draft allowed for multiple underlines to be specified on the same element.
However, even in CSS2, if you have nested elements each applying an
underline, they all get drawn under the descendant text. For example,

.spelling-error { text-decoration: underline; color: red }

    <span style="text-decoration: underline; color: blue">
      <span class="spelling-error">
         mispelt
      </span>
      correct
    </span>

Here the mispelt word will have two underlines: one red, one blue. (If
they're both the same style and font size, the red underline will paint
over the blue underline. Spellcheckers often use a different style,
though, so both underlines will be evident.) I think this should address
your use case.

[paulnel: this seems reasonable to do. Thanks for explaining.]


 
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 11:39:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:49 GMT