- From: Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:19:09 -0000
- To: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Paul, I'm confused now... ;-) fantasai requested a review of http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#line-decoration, which doesn't seem to contain the text you reference in [1]. It does contain an example, 'Example X', which at first glance seems to indicate that a single line of text containing glyphs from different fonts may each use the appropriate font-specific underline. The text in the section above the example belies this. This can be confusing. I didn't do a thorough read. I assumed the intent was to allow differing font-specific decorations on the same line in CSS3. Apparently not (which is unfortunate, in my view.) A closer look yields that the example seems to intend to show how the calculation of underline position and thickness is averaged across fonts occurring on a line. I think this is not clear and that the example should be improved to avoid this potential for confusion. Also, not sure what specification is quoted in [1]; but regarding this: " 1.1.1.1.1.2. If the font of the run does not have outline text metrics (the font is a bitmap font), the underline position will the bottom row of pixels of the text height. " Two comments: 1. I don't understand what "the bottom row of pixels of the text height' means. More word-smithing needed here, I think. 2. I would suggest changing this text to something like: "If the font of the run does not define the underline position, that position will be <whatever it is we're trying to say here>." My point being that bitmapped fonts may contain underline position information, and if they do it would be preferable to use it than to ignore it. Analogous comments apply to other references here to bitmapped fonts. (And by the way, fantasai, I noticed that the examples go from X to XII (skipping XI)). Best wishes, Melinda [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/49C257E2C13F584790B2E302E021B6F914E71FCD@w inse-msg-01.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com;list=www-style
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 23:20:05 UTC