[css-text-decor] A new property for text decorations to skip ink

[kojiishi]

From the IRC log of the WG discussion on issue #707, #727, and #843, we agreed to add a property to control skipping ink in L3, and defer other controls to L4.

This is to discuss how the property should look like.

@FremyCompany said

ink skipping: yes or no should be in level 3

and given #707 and #727, @fantasai suggested

auto | yes | no

somewhere.

As far as I understand, the discussion points are:

• Property name. Is text-decoration-skip-ink appropriate?
  • It may or may not be part of the shorthand in L4, see [css-text-decor] selective toggling in the text-decoration-skip property. #843 for more details.
  • It may not include line-through, does not at least for auto, see [css-text-decor] Should text-decoration-skip apply to overline and line-through? #711 for more details.
• Values:
  • I think it's reasonable to have auto as an initial value, and we're almost in consensus on this point in [css-text-decor] Add auto value for text-decoration-skip: #727?
  • Opt-out is quite clear, easy to define, easy to understand. Just wondering on the naming, is no good?
  • yes isn't as clear to me; how should we define it? We're seeing a few cases auto should not skip ink; line-through, per-script, or when position is inappropriate in some scripts. Should it turn on for all cases? Maybe we want different control for line-through and per-script to avoid unintentional breakages?

/cc @fantasai @frivoal @litherum @FremyCompany @dbaron @astearns @tantek @eaenet @drott
I can't find github account for Jenn and skk (anyone know?), all others in the IRC log are on the line above.

Opinions/discussions appreciated.

[kojiishi]

I can't find github account for Jenn and skk (anyone know?)

Sent an e-mail notification to them manually.

[jensimmons]

FYI, I spell Jen with one 'n', not two, so that makes me @jensimmons on GitHub (and IRC). Here I am. Thanks for emailing me directly so I'd see this.

[realskk]

Thanks for letting me know, @kojiishi . My account is @realskk. (I couldn't get skk)

[kojiishi]

Got a few feedback offline:

• Prefer to have yes in L3.
  • yes should skip ink regardless of scripts (or underline offset if Arabic wants auto to decide skip/not to skip by the underline position.)
  • yes should not skip ink for strikethrough.
• Since strikethrough is not included, text-underline-skip-ink might be more appropriate property name?
  • It includes overline, but text-underline-position includes overline too, so we'e at least consistent.

[eaenet]

Thanks @kojiishi, that sounds great. text-underline-skip-ink does indeed seem more appropriate.

[frivoal]

yes should skip ink regardless of scripts (or underline offset if Arabic wants auto to decide skip/not to skip by the underline position.)

I don't think yes should cause the position of the underline to move to account for arabic. As being discussed in #727 (comment), it is likely that shifting the position of the underline is the correct behavior for that language, but that should come out of an other property (https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-4/#underline-offset).

[kojiishi]

@frivoal I tried to mean that yes should skip ink regardless of scripts or underline offset. I hope this is the same as you said?

[kojiishi]

WG resolved to defer the property to L4.

RESOLVED: Use text-decoration-skip-ink with at least values of auto and none and it cascade sep from shorthand. We will have some normative text desc how auto works, but we'll figure the details out in the future. Do in L4

[frivoal]

After re-reading the minutes, it seems to me that we were partly talking past eachother on the topic of the shorthand.

I thought were were discussing whether text-decoration-skip-ink should be part of the text-decoration-skip shorthand that we previously decided to add to level 4, since that is the question that was explicitly raised by @kojiishi in the first comment in this github issue. It now seems to me that at least @fantasai was discussing whether it should be part of the text-decoration shorthand, since her key argument was that it is important that these cascade separately so that you can turn text-decorations on and off separately from deciding what they should look like:

You'll want to set it at a higher level for how you want
to behave for the document. Turning on and off for the
underline is separate. Thus they shouldn't be conflated.

That is an argument for text-decoration-skip and all related text-decoration-skip-* properties not being part of the text-decoration shorthand, and I completely agree with it (and can understand why @fantasai seemed surprised in IRC that I didn't get that point). So if that is what the resolution means, good.

This does not however address whether text-decoration-skip-ink should or should not be part of the text-decoration-skip shorthand, so I think we need a separate resolution on that. As I understand, @kojiishi thinks it should not. See this quote from #962 (comment):

It may or may not be part of the shorthand in L4, see #843 for more details.

I have read #843, and I fail to see how it provides arguments in favor of text-decoration-skip-ink not being part of the text-decoration-skip shorthand. It still makes more sense to me text-decoration-skip-ink should be part of text-decoration-skip, given that the entire purpose of that property is to reset the type of skipping we should have. It seems counter intuitive that it would only reset some kinds of skipping, and I have not seen (or understood) the use cases where you'd like to reset most types of skipping to whatever their default value is but want to preserve ink-skipping being off (keeping it on is not part of the use case, since that's the default and is therefore what you'd get if it were part of the text-decoration-skip shorthand).

If being unrelated to the text-decoration shorthand is not what we resolved on, then I don't understand how @fantasai 's argument is relevant, and I still fail to understand Koji's point.

[kojiishi]

Does that mean you agree not to include to text-decoration shorthand but you prefer to include in text-decoration-skip shorthand? If so, I think I incorrectly assumed that it's no longer a discussion point, sorry about that. And I agree with your interpretation that @fantasai's comment at the weekly call was about text-decoration shorthand, not about text-decoration-skip shorthand.

I think I wrote this somewhere, but my mild preferences in the order is:

1. Not to have text-decoration-skip shorthand.
2. If we were to have one, not to include ink. Maybe some others too.

but I'm ok if people prefers other options.

My primary concern is when author starts using

:root { text-decoration-skip: ink; }

and when a UA supports leading-spaces, the page suddenly draws underlines to leading spaces. Stylish values are likely to be applied to the whole document, and it is possible to hit us when we want to add new values. On the other hand, semantic values are likely to be used like:

image.emoji { text-decoration-skip: none; }

so they look less risky to me.

IIRC @fantasai and I discussed that ink (and maybe edges too) is about stylish, while values like 'objects' is about semantics (such as this image is Emoji while that image is photo) and that the meaning of "skip" is somewhat different. So I assume she and I are in consensus, and I guess I incorrectly assumed all of us are in consensus.

Note, one may still do:

div.message-pane { text-decoration-skip: none }

to draw underlines to Emoji in a message app, without knowing it disables ink, edges, and all other values. That's why I feel having text-decoration-skip shorthand has more risks than benefits, but if you or anyone is strong about this, I'm ok.