- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 15:17:01 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/06/2013 11:30 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Monday 2013-05-06 19:07 -0700, fantasai wrote: >> On 03/24/2013 09:18 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#decoration says: >>> # In determining the position of and thickness of text decoration >>> # lines, user agents may consider the font sizes of and dominant >>> # baselines of descendants, but must use the same baseline and >>> # thickness on each line. >>> >>> On the other hand, >>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor-3/#line-position says "user >>> agents must consider, per line box, ..." >>> >>> If this change was an intentional change from CSS 2.1, the >>> specification should say so. >>> >>> However, I prefer the CSS 2.1 behavior. Having the >>> underline calculated per-line-box means the behavior can differ >>> depending on where line breaks happen. This, I think, means that >>> authors are more likely to produce content that works at some line >>> widths and doesn't work at others. It also seems inconsistent to >>> me, although I'm not aware of common practice in other systems. >>> >>> What was the rationale for this change? >> >> Hm, it wasn't intended to be a change. My reading of 2.1 was that >> "on each line" was a constraining clause, i.e. "within each line", >> not "across all lines". > > Hmmm. I'd never seen that it was even possible to read it that way, > and I don't think it was intended that way, but I admit it could be > read that way. > > That said, if that was what were intended, why would the "but must > use the same baseline and thickness on each line" clause have been > included at all? Because before you'd have <u>some text <big>big text</big> <small>small text</small></u> and you'd get three different underlines. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:17:30 UTC