RE: [CSS21] [css3-text] Text decoration behavior

I like the change earlier proposed by Fantasai (although it needs to say what it replaces. I am assuming it replaces the sentence that begins with "In determining the position of and thickness of text decoration lines..."

Paul's earlier message suggested replacing "must" with "should" in regards of using a continuous line for text-decoration. "Should" still encourages the most-common-case behavior of underlining mixed-font text; however "must" is unusually prescriptive and limits the capabilities of UI to deal with corner-cases of fine typographic detail (the freedom UAs still have in vast majority of the rest of the spec).

I think Fantasai's new wording, with a one-word difference would be the right text to have in 16.3.1:

---- proposed change ----

An single element can only generate a maximum of one underline, one line-through, and one overline. The number of line segments drawn for each will depend on how many line boxes the element spans, and also how many bits of content it is required to skip. Assuming that no elements in the line box are affected by relative positioning, it


be possible to connect all line segments drawn in each line box due that element's underline, line-through, or overline into a single continuous straight line segment of a constant thickness and color.

The spec is currently ambiguous about whether the text decoration lines'
thickness and position with respect to the element's baseline must be consistent across line boxes.

---- end of change ----

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of fantasai
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:30 AM
To: Paul Nelson (ATC)
Cc: L. David Baron; Steve Zilles;
Subject: Re: [CSS21] [css3-text] Text decoration behavior

Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> Would you consider common use to be word processors and other text
> editors that support strikethrough?

I would consider them a subset of "common use". With regards to
strike-through in particular, I'd strongly consider handwriting
(or at least hand-striking) conventions as well.

When considering good typographic behavior, I'd give a higher weight
to high-quality typeset *output* than to the options available in a
word processor or even those in a high-end typesetting program.


Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 19:25:46 UTC