- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:09:10 -0800
- To: Sergey Malkin <sergeym@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday 2007-12-18 09:54 -0800, Sergey Malkin wrote: > > In Ruby module, property 'line-stacking-ruby' referenced as a way > to control whether Ruby text is taken into account for calculating > line box. However, in current WG Line module draft I have access > to this and some other properties marked as old and to be removed. > > So, Paul (as editor of Ruby module) and David (as editor of line > module), which spec is correct? > > - is this property considered not necessary and reference > should be removed from Ruby module, or > - is this property now become one of the values of > 'line-box-contain' property and, again, Ruby module should be > edited accordingly I have a very old action that hasn't been at the top of my list for a while to edit the 'line-box-contain' property from http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-box-20010726/#the-line-box-contain into css3-linebox and simultaneously fix up the description of the line box model to be compatible with the model in CSS1 and CSS2. It's sort of half-done. In general, I'm not really a fan of either property. Mode-switching properties (one property that changes the meaning of another property, as 'line-box-contain' does especially) don't fit with the CSS cascading model very well, and they can make authoring confusing. Properties with values that authors might want to change part of but leave part of are also somewhat problematic. 'line-box-contain' has that problem too. But I don't think we want the explosion of new properties that would result from giving each of the values proposed for line-box-contain (plus ruby) its own property. I'd also comment that I think CSS should bias towards default values being readable (even if occasionally ugly), and I'm skeptical of having a default value that ruby should be ignored as part of line-stacking. I would think ruby should default towards expanding the line if needed. However, if the author provides enough line spacing, then it shouldn't cause additional expansion. (This would suggest a model where line-height doesn't apply to ruby; otherwise the line-height would inherit to the ruby itself, and the ruby being offset would make the line expand even more.) This is important for cases where, for example, the author specifies line-height that provides sufficient spacing to fit the ruby in the fonts on his machine, but where it turns out the spacing is insufficient on other machines (e.g., mobile devices where the default font is relatively closer to the minimum readable font size, so that the ruby is closer in size to the main text). I'm not sure if that's very helpful, but I think this stuff probably needs more work before it's solid. > And on general note, what are the plans for making these modules public? I should move css3-linebox over to dev.w3.org now that we can do that, when I have the chance. It's not really in a usable state, though. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2007 04:09:22 UTC