Re: [css-text-decor-3] text-decoration model should account for 'objects' ∉ 'text-decoration-skip'

On 05/07/2013 02:02 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Monday 2013-05-06 18:16 -0700, fantasai wrote:
>
>> Good point. Added a new chapter on that:
>>    http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor/#painting-order
>>
>>    # As in [CSS21], text decorations are drawn immediately over/under
>>    # the text they decorate, in the following order (bottommost first):
>>    #
>>    #  1. shadows (‘text-shadow’)
>>    #  2. underlines (‘text-decoration’)
>>    #  3. overlines (‘text-decoration’)
>>    #  4. text
>>    #  5. emphasis marks (‘text-emphasis’)
>>    #  6. line-through (‘text-decoration’)
>>    #
>>    # Where line decorations are drawn across box decorations or
>>    # atomic inlines, they are drawn over non-positioned content
>>    # and just below any positioned descendants (immediately
>>    # below layer #8 in CSS2.1 Appendix E).
>>
>> Let us know if that seems correct/sufficient!
>
> This doesn't seem quite sufficient since shadows are composed of:
>   * underlines
>   * overlines
>   * text
>   * emphasis marks (I assume, but it should be specified!)
>   * line-through
> as specified in
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor-3/#text-shadow-property
> (except for the lack of mention of emphasis marks).
>
> I think the obvious adjustment to place all of these items inside
> the shadows item in the same order they are for normal drawing would
> be sufficient to fix this.

I think shadows need to painted as a single layer, otherwise
a semi-transparent shadow of opaque text and decorations would
not look right. Filed an issue on this:
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor-3/issues-lc-2013#issue-16

>> Added
>>    # (In the case of line decorations drawn over an atomic inline
>>    # or across box decorations, they are similarly associated with
>>    # the affected box rather than the decorating box.)
>> to that paragraph. Let me know if that's sufficiently clear...
>
> Does "box decorations" mean "margin, border, and padding"?  I think
> it should be clearer to say so, and perhaps also say that that
> wording applies specifically to the margin, border, and padding only
> of non-replaced inline boxes.
>
> I think it might also help to say "the affected atomic inline box or
> non-replaced inline box".

Ok, tried to make that more explicit.

~fantasai

Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 08:45:35 UTC