W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2017

Re: [css-text-decor] Proposal for the 'text-emphasis-position' property syntax values

From: Momdo Nakamura <xmomdo@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:14:42 +0000
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20161228221409.C167.EDA4FE4B@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> So I think we can simplify to
> 
>    text-emphasis-position: [ over | under ] && [ right | left ]?
> 
> Does this work for you?

Sounds good.
Since most web contents authors always don't intend to write pages on vertical, 
it seems to me that omitting [ right | left ] make sense.


Cheers,
Momdo

> On 12/15/2015 03:04 PM, Momdo Nakamura wrote:
> > (This mail is a repost of my blog article. [1])
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > According to the current css-text-decor-3 spec [2], authors must set 2-values (One value is for horizontal text mode, another value is for vertical text mode).
> >
> >
> > example 1 (current spec):
> > em { text-emphasis-position: over right;} /* valid */
> > em { text-emphasis-position: over; } /* invalid */
> >
> >
> > However, this current syntax is redundant and painful for authors.
> > I believe that most authors want to specify either horizontal text mode or vertical text mode,
> > because, in the most cases, authors assume a specific text direction and would accept any fallback.
> >
> > I talked about these values with Xidron on Twitter [3].
> > He claimed that the redundancy is for that the preferred position of emphasis marks is different between Japanese and Chinese (see note of section 3.4 in the spec).
> > But I think it does not make sense, because the property is for authors who wish to modify the default behaviour.
> > I guess only few authors want to tune the both for their purpose, while the majority wants to manipulate only one of them.
> > Especially, it is redundant for the majority of authors to be always required 2-value syntax in horizontal text mode.
> > I wonder why both of the two is still required all of the time.
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to propose the following syntax.
> >
> >
> > Proposal:
> > ([ over | under ] [ right | left ]?) || ([ right | left ] [ over | under ]?)
> >
> >
> > example 1 (per proposal):
> > em { text-emphasis-position: over right;} /* valid */
> > em { text-emphasis-position: over; } /* valid */
> 
> Since both languages have a preference for emphasis marks on
> the right in vertical text, then it seems to me that omitting
> [ left | right ] should be no problem, defaulting to right.
> 
> Omitting [ over | under ] I think would be more of a problem,
> since this option is the one that tends to vary, and there
> could be an incorrect result even in a vertical document if
> there was, e.g. a horizontal caption or footnote with emphasis.
> 
> So I think we can simplify to
> 
>    text-emphasis-position: [ over | under ] && [ right | left ]?
> 
> Does this work for you?
> 
> > This proposal is to let authors omit one of the two available values.
> > In this condition, UA has to try to resolve unspecified values, according to such as the lang attribute of HTML.
> > Since the preferred position of emphasis marks depends on the document language, UA needs to use the computed document language information anyhow.
> > It means that there is no obstacle from this point.
> 
> The preference in position is established through the UA default
> style sheet, so it is not magic built into the feature itself.
> 
> ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 14:39:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 2 February 2017 14:39:00 UTC