W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [css3-text] Behavior of text-decoration with differing font sizes, subscript, superscript, etc.

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:35:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxkvsPywZ_gGswKpZxA5rjNU2ziUz1JGyMTghA_PHKhXnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:18 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> Please let us know if this is satisfactory or if you have further
> comments on this issue (including any suggested clarifications to
> the new prose).

Thanks!  The new text looks like it addresses the basic issue I
brought up; I'm not qualified to judge whether it best addresses all
the use-cases, but it's fine for mine.  A few points I didn't
understand about the spec text:

"overlines (and over-positioned underlines)": "over" is italicized,
but not linked to anything.  In contrast, in the later text fragment
"non-alphabetic underlines (and under-positioned overlines)", "under"
is linked.  Is this an error?  I didn't see where "over-positioned" is
defined.  'text-underline-position' as defined in the current draft
doesn't support an 'over' value.

Likewise, the phrase "text-over" on the next line is italicized but
not linked.  It would be useful to link it to wherever it's defined.

The phrase "under-positioned overlines" links to
'text-underline-position', but the prose for that property makes it
sound like it only affects underlines, not overlines.  Is this
correct?  What does it mean for an overline to be under-positioned?

(These aren't issues I personally need answers to, I just thought I'd
point them out once I was reading the spec text anyway.)
Received on Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:36:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT