W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > February 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text-decor] A new property for text decorations to skip ink

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:33:58 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-280228730-1487219636-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
After re-reading the minutes, it seems to me that we were partly 
talking past eachother on the topic of the shorthand.

I thought were were discussing whether `text-decoration-skip-ink` 
should be part of the `text-decoration-skip` shorthand that we 
previously decided to add to level 4, since that is the question that 
was explicitly raised by @kojiishi in the first comment in this github
 issue. It now seems to me that at least @fantasai was discussing 
whether it should be part of the `text-decoration` shorthand, since 
her key argument was that it is important that these cascade 
separately so that you can turn text-decorations on and off separately
 from deciding what they should look like:

> You'll want to set it at a higher level for how you want
   to behave for the document. Turning on and off for the
   underline is separate. Thus they shouldn't be conflated.

That is an argument for `text-decoration-skip` and all related 
`text-decoration-skip-*` properties not being part of the 
`text-decoration` shorthand, and I completely agree with it (and can 
understand why @fantasai seemed surprised in IRC that I didn't get 
that point). So if that is what the resolution means, good.

This does not however address whether `text-decoration-skip-ink` 
should or should not be part of the `text-decoration-skip` shorthand, 
so I think we need a separate resolution on that. As I understand, 
@kojiishi thinks it should not. See this quote from 
> It may or may not be part of the shorthand in L4, see #843 for more 

I have read #843, and I fail to see how it provides arguments in favor
 of `text-decoration-skip-ink` not being part of the 
`text-decoration-skip` shorthand. It still makes more sense to me 
`text-decoration-skip-ink` should be part of `text-decoration-skip`, 
given that the entire purpose of that property is to reset the type of
 skipping we should have. It seems counter intuitive that it would 
only reset some kinds of skipping, and I have not seen (or understood)
 the use cases where you'd like to reset most types of skipping to 
whatever their default value is but want to preserve ink-skipping 
being off (keeping it on is not part of the use case, since that's the
 default and is therefore what you'd get if it were part of the 
`text-decoration-skip` shorthand).

If being unrelated to the `text-decoration` shorthand is not what we 
resolved on, then I don't understand how @fantasai 's argument is 
relevant, and I still fail to understand Koji's point.

GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 04:34:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:08 UTC