- From: jfkthame via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:50:43 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> When I read "in CJK context" I assume this brings with it a number of CJK typographic conventions like where underline normally is placed relative to the CJK embox, and thus whether the skip-ink feature would be usable as in a typical Latin-based descender-skipping context. I think this is what `text-underline-position: under` is intended to achieve, and if this were applied, the problem of skip-ink behavior producing poor results for CJK text would largely be mitigated. But not all browsers support `text-underline-position: under`, and even when they do, there'll be lots of existing content that doesn't apply it. (Fonts designed primarily for CJK use could also set their `underlineOffset` parameter so as to place the underline lower than fonts designed for Latin; but even if they did this -- which many don't -- not all browsers respect the font's setting anyway.) I suppose one option would be to have browsers automatically switch underline positions between a default that's suitable for Latin text and a position for CJK text on a character-by-character basis, but I expect this could give very messy results for mixed-script content. Turning ink-skipping on/off based on the script of the text seems like a better mitigation, although the "right" solution is for authors to use the tools -- such as `text-underline-position` and `text-underline-offset` -- that allow them to place the underline more appropriately. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jfkthame Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4276#issuecomment-581479507 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 3 February 2020 15:50:45 UTC