W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

RE: [CSS3-text] text-underline-position and superscript

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 23:03:17 -0500
To: "Belov, Charles" <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0AA8B1C12B@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> I believe that the information found at
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#line-decoration
> addresses my issues with regard to superscript.
> It might be nice to add subscript
> just so it is clear what would happen with that.

Well, the text covers not only superscript but also any properties including subscript and font size. It's just an example picture that only covers superscript. Your review for the text, not only for the picture, is greatly appreciated.

> As a side note, in Firefox at a minimum font size of 18px,
> the bottom of several lines of the code in Example X are
> getting shaved off, the portion within and including the blockquote tags.

Yeah, thank you for pointing this out. As in the red text, this section must be synchronized with CSS 2.1 once it's done, and fantasai or I are probably going to fix it at that point.


Regards,
Koji

-----Original Message-----
From: Belov, Charles [mailto:Charles.Belov@sfmta.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:58 AM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: www-style@w3.org; Ambrose LI
Subject: RE: [CSS3-text] text-underline-position and superscript



Koji Ishii [mailto:kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp] wrote on Sunday, December 26, 2010 6:23 AM
> Thank you for your summary. Yes, the way you organized issues matches 
> to what I think they should be.
> 
> For issue #1, it's generalized as "underlining to text that contains 
> multiple different properties (fonts, super/sub, etc.)", and I agree 
> that it should be handled better.
> Actually it does in the current CSS3 text spec[1]. Can you please 
> review it and see if the problem still exists?
> 
> For issue #2, I still see the issue is the same one as Kenny brought 
> up[2]. I'm not against the idea, I actually would like it happen, I'm 
> just saying the issue is different from #1. I was actually hoping to 
> write up something once I've got responses to [2] and we all have got 
> consensus, but it didn't happen unfortunately. If you could go back to 
> the thread and continue the discussions, that'd be helpful to make it 
> happen.
> 
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#line-decoration
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Dec/0117.html
> 

I believe that the information found at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#line-decoration addresses my issues with regard to superscript.  It might be nice to add subscript just so it is clear what would happen with that.

As a side note, in Firefox at a minimum font size of 18px, the bottom of several lines of the code in Example X are getting shaved off, the portion within and including the blockquote tags.

Hope this helps,
Charles Belov
SFMTA Webmaster
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ambrose LI [mailto:ambrose.li@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 11:00 PM
> To: Koji Ishii
> Cc: Belov, Charles; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [CSS3-text] text-underline-position and superscript
> 
> Sorry for following up on myself again. I'll blame it being early 
> morning, but let me reorganize myself a bit and restate how the two 
> ideas are related:
> 
> ==================================================
> 
> There are two generalized principles common to Charles' and my ideas, 
> and the two general principles are that:
> 
> 1. We need some way to specify that, in some situations, no matter 
> what the glyph-specific underline position is, we want to keep a 
> constant underline position for some logical grouping of characters.
> 
> (1a) For superscript/subscripts: underlines don't move up/down due to 
> the super/subscripting
> 
> (1b) For Chinese: underlines don't move up/down when there are Latin 
> or other non-CJK characters in the sequence
> 
> 2. As a corollary of the above, we need some way to specify that 
> underlines are always visually disjoint if they are semantically 
> marked up as separate.
> 
> (2a) For superscripts/subscripts: The logical markup is provided by 
> SUP or SUB and we make it clear that we want the underlines to move 
> up/down along with the super/subscript
> 
> (2b) For Chinese: The logical markup is provided by U and we make it 
> clear that the two adjacent underlines should never run into each 
> other
> 
> (2c) The Chinese use case could also potentially be useful for 
> non-Chinese situations
> 
> What Charles proposed are ways to specify how the constant underline 
> position in #1 should be determined, and to specify how a non-constant 
> underline position in #2 can be explicitly specified for superscripts 
> and subscripts. Perhaps there can be ways to get rid of the proposed 
> keywords, but his proposal is a good analysis (without considering the 
> requirements for the Chinese typography) of what we will need to deal 
> with when we need the browser to figure out a constant position for 
> the underlining.
> 
> Charles did not explicitly specify a use case for "pixel positioning", 
> but I suggested it as a possible fix for incorrect underline position 
> in Chinese. The above also shows that the counter-proposal of 
> correcting the underline positions in CJK fonts (which still should be 
> corrected, since this affects also word processors) alone will not be 
> a complete fix to the Chinese problem. Personally, I envision "pixel 
> positioning" to be usable as a workaround for both problem #1, and 
> problem #2 when we are dealing specifically with superscripts and 
> subscripts; it may not be a perfect solution but this could be what 
> Charles had in mind,
> *especially* if you don't want the proposed additional keywords.
> 
> --
> cheers,
> -ambrose
> 
> does anyone know how to fix Snow Leopard? it broke input method 
> switching and is causing many typing mistakes and is very annoying
> 
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 04:01:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:35 GMT