Re: Inline formatting model document

Also sprach Erik van der Poel:

 > >  > Thanks for the info! I didn't know that. Does the spec also say where
 > >  > the underline should be drawn
 > > 
 > > No. And I don't think it should -- doensn't fonts have this
 > > information in them?
 > > 
 > >  > how thick it should be
 > > 
 > > Ditto.
 > 
 > There are 2 problems:
 > 
 > (1) Only some of the fonts have the underline position/thickness info.
 > (2) Of those fonts that have the info, some of them recommend ugly
 > positions and thicknesses.
 > 
 > So, I would like the spec to say something about this. For example, the
 > spec could say:
 > 
 >   The implementation MAY use the underline position and
 >   thickness information found in some fonts.

I'm fine with that.

 > >  > and whether it affects the line box?
 > > 
 > > It does not. This isn't said specifically in the description of
 > > 'text-decoration: underline', but 'text-decoration' isn't mentioned in
 > > the description of how line boxes are created.
 > 
 > Since an esthetically pleasing underline may not fall within the lower
 > part of the (em square + half-leading) area (especially for East Asian
 > text), I would like the spec to explicitly allow implementations to
 > choose to make the underline box affect the line box.
 > 
 > Or are you saying that the UA must draw the underline within the lower
 > part of the (em square + half-leading) area, no matter what line-height
 > has been set to?

I think the UA should be allowed to draw the undeline whereever it
wants, but I'm against making the line box calculations more complex.
Even if you were to achive an esthetical improvemnet in the
glyph/underline relationship, wouldn't you lose that by having uneven
line spacing (e.g. in a non-underlined block element, with a small
underlined inline element in it) ?

-h&kon

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2000 10:23:21 UTC