[css-text-decor-3] Updated DoC, open issues

# fantasai (10 months ago)

I've drafted up a Disposition of Comments for the 2013 CSS Text Decoration CR: drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013

There's a bunch of issues which have proposed edits that need review, a few that are still open for discussion with no concrete proposal, and some that are looking for i18n input. Those open for the CSSWG's action are marked with =WG=, and those looking for i18n input are marked =i18n= in the issues list.

A summary follows. Please review the list, and if you have input, send it to us for consideration. :)

Issues that need further discussion:

Issue 1: Allow UA to skip ink by default drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-1 Proposed to handle this via UA stylesheet rather than initial value.

Issue 25: New keyword to represent complex initial value of text-decoration-skip drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-1 Proposed to accept, meaning might depend on #1.

Issue 9: Clarify position of emphasis marks over auto-hidden ruby drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-9 Needs further input from CJK community and implementers.

Issue 10: Are there emphasis mark position preferences for Korean? drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-12, w3c/klreq#19 Needs info from Korean community.

Issue 11: Emphasis marks shouldn't apply to punctuation drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-16 Needs further input from CJK community if changes are desired. See also drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-4/#text-emphasis-skip and view-source:drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-4/Overview.bs (which contains some comments). Follow-up to w3c/csswg-drafts#839

Issue 21: Interaction of text decoration, emphasis dots, & ruby drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-21 Currently under discussion.

Issue 22: CJK doesn't like skipping ink, shouldn't by default drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-22 Currently under discussion, possibly a quality-of-implementation issue.

Issue 25: Position of underline should depend on skipped things drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-25 Needs CSSWG discussion.

Edits proposed (or issue rejected), need WG approval:

Issue 10: Clarify whether emphasis marks are upright or sideways for sideways-rl/lr drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-10 Proposed edits make them sideways, since these writing modes are intended to be effectively rotated horizontal text.

Issue 13: Should emphasis marks use 'font-variant: ruby'? drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-13 Proposed edits apply 'ruby' per Ken Lunde's recommendation.

Issues 11, 18, 19: Improvements to default UA stylesheet suggestions drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-11, drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-18, drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-19 Proposed edits to better handle nesting of languages and to avoid altering existing horizontal content.

Issue 18: 'text-emphasis-position' requires too many arguments drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-17 Proposed to make vertical-mode argument optional. Needs CSSWG approval and i18n to check assumptions. :)

Issue 20: Update spec to handle sideways-lr/sideways-rl drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-20 Proposed to make these behave exactly as rotated horizontal text, see lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Dec/0119.html

Issues rejected, need WG approval:

Issue 5: text-shadow should apply to inline images drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-5 Proposed to reject due to compat considerations

Issue 14: 'text-emphasis' shorthand should not allow only <color> drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-14 Rejected based on existing CSS syntactic patterns like 'border'.

Issues that were deferred:

Issue 2: text-decoration-color vs SVG fills drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-2 Deferred to FXTF Paint spec

Issue 3: Allow specifying position and thickness of underlines drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-3 Deferred to L4

Issue 4: Allow arbitrary decorations drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-4 Deferred to as-yet-unknown spec and/or never?

~fantasai

Contact us to advertise here
# Florian Rivoal (9 months ago)

On Dec 28, 2016, at 00:43, fantasai fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net wrote:

I've drafted up a Disposition of Comments for the 2013 CSS Text Decoration CR: drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013

Github issue 727 is listed twice in there, once as "Issue 1" (raised by Tess) and once as "Issue 26" (raised by me). I think Issue 26 should be changed to point to w3c/csswg-drafts#843 instead, and probably adopt the github issue title as its summary.

—Florian

# Florian Rivoal (9 months ago)

On Dec 28, 2016, at 00:43, fantasai fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net wrote:

I've drafted up a Disposition of Comments for the 2013 CSS Text Decoration CR: drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013

Issue 6[1] is marked as resolved, and it mostly is, but the minutes[2] indicate the plan was to:

  • Add the new behavior and new keywords in L4 (done)
  • Add a note to L3 saying we expect to change to match L4 (done)
  • Update the default behavior in L3 to match the one in L4 in a subsequent CR update. (not done)

It isn't entirely clear to me that we had solid agreement on that last point when we moved on, with Fantasai seeming in favor, plinss seeming against.

Should that be counted as a separate open issue?

— Florian [1] drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-6 [2] lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015May/0314.html

# fantasai (a day ago)

On 01/07/2017 07:02 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:

On Dec 28, 2016, at 00:43, fantasai fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net wrote:

I've drafted up a Disposition of Comments for the 2013 CSS Text Decoration CR: drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013

Issue 6[1] is marked as resolved, and it mostly is, but the minutes[2] indicate the plan was to:

  • Add the new behavior and new keywords in L4 (done)
  • Add a note to L3 saying we expect to change to match L4 (done)
  • Update the default behavior in L3 to match the one in L4 in a subsequent CR update. (not done)

It isn't entirely clear to me that we had solid agreement on that last point when we moved on, with Fantasai seeming in favor, plinss seeming against.

Should that be counted as a separate open issue?

I think, yes, that should be counted as a separate open issue. I can definitely see a good argument either way, given that <ins> and <del> need the old behavior and they can't get it

if we take it away from L3 entirely.

(Also I'm really tired right now, so maybe I'm confused.)

~fantasai

Want more features?

Request early access to our private beta of readable email premium.