Re: [css-text-decor] Doesn't example 3 in text-underline-position break current UA behavior?

fantasai, can you give us the idea how you want to change the syntax
further?

/koji
On Jul 3, 2015 3:28 PM, "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Myles C. Maxfield <mmaxfield@apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Clarification appreciated since your arguments could read in two ways; I
>> understand you want "auto" to do proper positioning between Latin and
>> under. Are you also suggesting, when just "auto" is specified, it should
>> set "right" (almost 100% for JK) and "left" (almost 100% for C if emphasis
>> purposes IIUC)?
>>
>>
>> I'm proposing that "auto" should take any and all context into
>> consideration, including things like which language the text seems to have
>> come from, how many characters in a row seem to come from that language,
>> where line breaks occur, etc. Given all this information, "auto" can decide
>> whether to put the line on the left or the right, and it can make this
>> decision on whatever granularity makes the most sense (character, phrase,
>> line, element, etc.). I'm also proposing that this behavior be able to be
>> overridden using "under", "left", or "right".
>>
>> "auto" would mean "Do whatever you think is best"
>> "auto left" would mean "For vertical writing modes, put the underline on
>> the left. Otherwise, it's up to you."
>> "under left" would mean "For horizontal writing modes, use the 'under'
>> underline. Otherwise, (for vertical writing modes), put the underline on
>> the left"
>> "under" would mean "For horizontal writing modes, use the 'under'
>> underline. Otherwise, do whatever you think is best"
>> "left" is the same as "auto left"
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>
> Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you, but the spec was
> written under the different assumption, that is why I asked clarification.
> In the WG conf call (minutes here[1]), we discussed your proposal based on
> my understanding, and I'm glad that I read your proposal correctly.
>
> Historically speaking, at one point the WG did not like "auto" doing
> language dependent "do whatever you think is best" and this spec was
> written by following the rule. However, the horizontal positioning already
> breaks the rule due to compat reasons, and when we discussed text-justify,
> the WG changed to prefer "do whatever you think is best".
>
> So I support your proposal, allowing "auto" to make the position automatic
> for both horizontal and vertical.
>
> And probably we want to apply the same logic to the text-emphasis-position
> property[2] too.
>
> Note that in the minutes, fantasai said if we were allowing auto to change
> the position in vertical flow, she wants to change the syntax a bit more.
>
> fantasai, what do you think? If you're fine, can you explain how you want
> to adjust the syntax further?
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0032.html
> [2]
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor-3/#text-emphasis-position-property
>
> /koji
>
>