Re: Direction

Michael Hamm wrote:

> I previously wrote[1], in part:
> 
>> The Direction property (CSS2) allows only for 'rtl' and 'ltr'
>> <snip> [A]dd a 'ttb' (top-to-bottom) value, and a Secondary-
>> direction property indicating which way the lines should be
>> ordered.
> 
> 
> I apologize. I see now that an I18n WG Working Draft
> <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-i18n-format-19990726/> discusses this
> (though does not discuss boustrophedon (sic), which Mr. Woolley[2]
> mentions).
> 
> On a different topic concerning that WD, I suggest text-decoration be used
> instead of font-emphasize[3].  That this new property can affect line-height
> is irrelevant; nothing forbids new values for text-decoration from affecting
> line-height.  And I fail to understand the WD's rationale that "the emphasis
> style should be distinguished from the text-decoration which is another
> method to 'emphasize' text content"; if it means that font-emphasis-style
> "is another method to 'emphasize' text content" whereas text-decoration is
> not, then I differ: underlining is certainly used for emphasis.

I agree with you. I think we should use text-decoration for this issue. 
There are no reason that the line height HAVE to be change. I think that 
part is implementation dependent. Actually, if you look at most Asian 
printing book, the line height does not change when you have these 
emphasize. I actually want to make the same suggestion. I think it will 
be nice to add new value for text-decoration instead of introduce new 
property name. How about add under-dot, over-dot, under-accent, 
over-accent, etc.Actually, you may find some combination is not needed.

> 
> 
> (I can't seem to set the Reply-to header in this idiotic e-mail client, but
> mean for replies to be sent to www-international.)
> 
> Michael Hamm
> BA Math scl, PBK, NYU
> mhamm@gc.cuny.edu
> http://www.crosswinds.net/~msh210/
> 
> ----------
> Notes:
> [1] Archived:
> <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2001Feb/0083.html>.
> [2] Archived:
> <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2001Feb/0086.html>.
> [3] Or perhaps vice versa (though not if one wants backward compatibility),
> but not both.
> 
> 
>