- From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:07:40 -0400
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
2011/4/8 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote: >> This is a very interesting point we edited the spec >> recently. There was a request from Chinese to split adjacent >> underlines visually[1]. The request was to add a new value, >> but instead, we chose to put following text in the spec[2]: >> >>> The UA should place the start and end of the line inwards >>> from the content edge of the decorating element so that, >>> e.g. two underlined elements side-by-side do not appear >>> to have a single underline. (This is important in Chinese, >>> where underlining is a form of punctuation.) >> >> Your 2nd example, adjacent underlines, contradicts with this request. > > Is any browser willing to implement this behavior? I'd be surprised > if they are. I'd expect it to add unsightly gaps to a lot of pages > that formerly rendered just fine. That'd be, IMHO, precisely why additional attributes were proposed. > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don’t agree with using Word as the model that we must follow. In >> terms of control of how the underline should behave it is falling very >> short of expectations of how underlines SHOULD behave in Chinese. > > I don't have the expertise to comment on the Chinese use-cases. > Whatever those are, I don't think they should stand in the way of > underlines working as expected for English speakers. If Chinese and > English speakers have different expectations, we'll need different > behavior. > >> However, I do agree that we should, in most (but not all) cases, >> consider the entire run of text to determine correct underline >> positioning. However, this should not be enforced all the time, as >> there can be cases we don’t want this. This was discussed in the >> previous thread. > > I can't recall what you're referring to. Which cases are you thinking of? It was a use case that someone else was thinking of. >>> The 3rd example, nested underlines, is even more >>> interesting. I tried to read expected behavior from the spec >>> without much luck. I guess the underlines should split, just >>> like adjacent underlines, but I'm not sure. >> >> This would also be what I expect (as someone who considers U a >> semantic element instead of a visual element). > > This would make it impossible to have a continuous underline in the > cases I gave earlier in this post, so I don't think it's workable. > Breaks between different underlines need to be opt-in somehow. This was discussed in the previous thread I mentioned. In short, additional attributes were proposed (not by me) but it was felt that they are not necessary and since then dropped. Also, if U is semantic (and I strongly believe they are), then how the U elements are nested would determine whether underlines will be continuous or not, and that would be the reason why I was not the person who proposed additional attributes, because in my model of how things should work would not require the additional attributes. -- cheers, -ambrose my thoughts on HTML5: http://goo.gl/vhv5F + http://goo.gl/leonq (thanks and no thanks)
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 21:08:08 UTC