Re: [office] Style properties questions/requests

[Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>]

At 17:33 2003 08 15 +0200, David Faure wrote:
>On Friday 15 August 2003 15:30, Michael Brauer wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> David Faure wrote:
>> > Text properties:
>> > 
>> > style:text-crossing-out (3.10.6) doesn't have support for stylelines (solid, dash, dot, dashdot, dashdotdot)
>> > KOffice supports crossing out text with various style of lines.
>> > 
>> > style:text-underline (3.10.22) should separate the number of lines (single/double) from the style of the lines (dotted etc.).
>> > This allows more combinations, like double-dotted, etc.
>> > The presence of all the bold-* values also suggests that bold should be separated.
>> 
>> Both sounds reasonable. Do you think we should have seperate attribute 
>> or should only separate the values (like "single dotted bold")? 
>Personnally I would prefer separate attributes. XML is about separating attributes,
>not about implementing different parsers for each attribute content.
>
>> We might  also consider to use the same values for both attributes.
>Yes.
>
>Let's try to define this more precisely.
>
>What about the following attributes, with their possible values:
>* text-underline-type:  "none", "single", "double"
>* text-underline-style: "solid", "dash", "long-dash", "dot", "dot-dash", "dot-dot-dash", "wave", "small-wave"
>* text-underline-thickness: "default", "bold"
>* text-underline-color already defined (3.10.23)


If we are going to redesign this, we might want to look at XSL and 
CSS properties and try to match them where feasible.

For example, see http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice7.html#text-decoration
and http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/text.html#propdef-text-decoration

There is also http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#text-decoration-overview
which is more involved (which may be good or bad, depending on how you
look at it).

paul