- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:56:34 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed ``Rename `text-decoration-thickness` to `text-decoration-weight`?``. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Rename `text-decoration-thickness` to `text-decoration-weight`?<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4138<br> <dael> astearns: jen suggested weight b/c typographic term. We have width, thickness, and weight as possibilities for the prop that determines how wide/thick a text underline is<br> <dael> astearns: Opinions on what we should do?<br> <dael> myles: We shipped thickness. Pref no change<br> <dael> astearns: Anyone else?<br> <TabAtkins> I prefer no change<br> <TabAtkins> (I prefer we'd kept it as 'width', but oh well.)<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4138#issuecomment-517121344<br> <dael> fantasai: I personally favor width b/c every other line thickness in css is width and that's helpful to authors<br> <dael> fantasai: bradk said same ^<br> <tantek> +1 fantasai<br> <dael> heycam: Prefer not to change here. I'd like to stick with [missed]<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: Would have leaned width, but not worth changing shipped impl<br> <tantek> seriously how did we all screw this up?<br> <dael> astearns: I believe heycam wanted preference for width<br> <dael> astearns: jen suggested weight b/c it's typographic. Somewhat against because we don't use it for line thickness elsewhere. Font has more then line thickness<br> <dael> myles: Also 400 is reasonable weight<br> <dael> astearns: Should reject weight. Have people on both sides of width and thickness<br> <tantek> outline-width etc.<br> <dael> fantasai: Sympathetic that we impl and shipped. Inconsistency will effect authors going forward and will have to remember this is only one that has a different name for what it's doing. THat's an ongoing cost<br> <dael> devin: Would argue it's different. Thickness of line under text I don't think is a width. border-width is how wide is it. Underline people think thick or heavy<br> <tantek> agreed with fantasai, for non-native English speakers, it makes no sense to appeal some minute difference of meaning between thickness and width<br> <dael> fantasai: majority of people don't speak english, they're looking for patterns. It's just another line.<br> <dael> myles: Value in css matching coloqueal talk<br> <astearns> tantek: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3118#issuecomment-432288810<br> <dael> fantasai: Yes. And in css matching itself<br> <dael> astearns: tantek asked for where we resolved on thickness<br> <fantasai> s/And in/But higher value in/<br> <dael> myles: At f2f, forget location. Did twitter poll asking people what width means, horizontal distance or vertical distance of line. 60/40 split with 60% being wrong answer<br> <tantek> wow those linked minutes do not have any reasoning for thickness<br> <tantek> that's really bad<br> <dael> astearns: I'm torn. Like consistency, but things are shipped. I'm inclined to leave things as they are with thickness. It's poss a mistake and we need to create line-weight alias<br> <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Dec/0004.html<br> <tantek> "shipped" is not good enough<br> <tantek> webcompat would be<br> <dael> fantasai: We won't make an alias. We'll either get this right now or we live with this<br> <dael> myles: Agree. If we didn't do font-stretch we won't do this<br> <dael> astearns: tantek in IRC says shipped isn't enough, should only consider web compat. Do we have content using this?<br> <dael> fantasai: Hardly any I think, shipped recently<br> <dael> myles: We did resolve before we shipped<br> <dael> tantek: There's no reasoning in that, not even a straw poll. I think we should throw that resolution out. I don't trust it.<br> <dael> myles: You were in the room tantek<br> <dael> tantek: I don't remember it.<br> <dael> astearns: I remember more discussion that in minutes, but it was short.<br> <dael> tantek: Well, it was scribed more now then it was then<br> <dael> tantek: We had resolution on some discussion. I see a non-trivial amount of folks uncomfortable after the fact. I'd request a straw poll to see if it's a few of us uncomfortable or if it's wider questions of the resolution<br> <dael> astearns: Can straw poll<br> <dael> Rossen_: We don't have as many people as compared to other calls. If this is problematic resolution let's push to next week with more people and give a week to think<br> <dael> tantek: I don't disagree, but doesn't conflict with my straw poll<br> <bkardell_> 14<br> <fantasai> fantasai: 1<br> <dael> astearns: For people on call to get tone of room. Please type 0 if don't care. 1 if prefer width. 2 if you prefer thickness<br> <astearns> 0<br> <fantasai> bradk: 1<br> <myles> 2<br> <smfr> 2<br> <dbaron> 2<br> <Rossen_> 2<br> <bkardell_> 0<br> <heycam> 2 (because I prefer not changing)<br> <AmeliaBR> 1<br> <drousso> 2 (because i'd rather not change)<br> <xfq> 0<br> <birtles> 0<br> <melanierichards> 0<br> <tantek> 1 / 0 (weak preference)<br> <dael> astearns: People on call slight preference for no change<br> <dael> astearns: Let's set this to go over next week with more people on call. Decision will be keep thickness or change it back to width<br> <tantek> I'm not seeing fantasai or tab on the poll who previously said 'width' in the above<br> <bkardell_> slight/weak preference prob, but I said 0 because i think it is weak<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4138#issuecomment-519310165 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2019 23:56:37 UTC