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

Re: [css3-text] text-decoration-skip not containing objects isn't compatible with CSS 2.1

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 22:25:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4DDC92D2.9030501@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/24/2011 06:15 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#text-decoration-skip defines the
> 'text-decoration-skip' property.  I think most of the values are
> fine, but I think any values that don't contain 'objects' are not
> compatible with the way 'text-decoration' is defined in CSS 2.1.
>
> CSS 2.1 specifies that, in terms of z-order, text decorations are
> drawn when text is drawn, so it doesn't make sense to draw text
> decorations when there is no text.
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/zindex.html#painting-order , 7.2.1.4.1.1)

The z-order of the text decorations are drawn immediately before and
after the text they're drawn on. If we expanded text decorations to
apply to replaced elements, then we'd do the same with the replaced
element: replace the 1-point list under "for replaced inline elements"
with the 4-point list under "If this is a run of text", with "text"
replaced by "the replaced content, atomically".

> Omitting objects also isn't compatible with the way CSS 2.1 defines
> the interaction of relative positioning and text-decoration, which
> is defined much like painting order -- in terms of when text is
> moved.
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#lining-striking-props)

I.. don't really see the incompatibility, if, as above, you treat
the replaced content as a glyph. What am I missing?

> I think we should remove the 'objects' value from
> text-decoration-skip and change the definition so it's as though
> 'objects' is always present.  Otherwise, I think we need to revisit
> the definition of 'text-decoration' in CSS 2.1.

The concern there is for images that are used as replacements for
textual characters (that are not in Unicode) or other inline symbols.
I can accept this not being a high enough priority to consider now,
but I'm a little hesitant to define syntax that makes it awkward to
address in the future.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 05:26:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT