- From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:35:42 +0200
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:18 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Please let us know if this is satisfactory or if you have further > comments on this issue (including any suggested clarifications to > the new prose). Thanks! The new text looks like it addresses the basic issue I brought up; I'm not qualified to judge whether it best addresses all the use-cases, but it's fine for mine. A few points I didn't understand about the spec text: "overlines (and over-positioned underlines)": "over" is italicized, but not linked to anything. In contrast, in the later text fragment "non-alphabetic underlines (and under-positioned overlines)", "under" is linked. Is this an error? I didn't see where "over-positioned" is defined. 'text-underline-position' as defined in the current draft doesn't support an 'over' value. Likewise, the phrase "text-over" on the next line is italicized but not linked. It would be useful to link it to wherever it's defined. The phrase "under-positioned overlines" links to 'text-underline-position', but the prose for that property makes it sound like it only affects underlines, not overlines. Is this correct? What does it mean for an overline to be under-positioned? (These aren't issues I personally need answers to, I just thought I'd point them out once I was reading the spec text anyway.)
Received on Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:36:32 UTC