W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2008

RE: [CSS21] [css3-text] Text decoration behavior

From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:50:45 -0800
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Steve Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D92F7E6A79E88B4684BFC067AE15477D1653BCFD4C@NA-EXMSG-S702.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>
Let's clear up the wording.

What are expected results when there are multiple line-throughs, underlines over overlines? Only one line at a time?

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:53 PM
To: Paul Nelson (ATC)
Cc: L. David Baron; Steve Zilles; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [CSS21] [css3-text] Text decoration behavior

Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
>> However, both of these improvements seem like edge cases, and I'm not sure they're worth the
>> complexity.  How often do these cases really come up?
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#lining-striking-props
>
> Third paragraph.
>
> There is concern that the description is very detailed and prescriptive.
> I believe our desire is to have the best typography possible. There could
> be some interpretation about what is "good typography" For example, some
> might say that line-through should be done at the most readable location
> across the text. Reading the current specification would seem to indicate
> that the strike through would be across the middle of the line and miss
>  striking out superscript or subscript text.

The spec prescribes that the strike-through must be a single line, not
multiple lines. The vertical position of the line may vary by UA, but
I strongly disagree that the number of lines should vary by UA.

I'm fine with clarifying the text here. I'm opposed to changing the
requirements or the expected results.

~fantasai



Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 02:52:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:02 GMT