Proposal for underlining/crossing-out

[Michael Brauer <michael.brauer@sun.com>]

Dear TC members,

as agreed in the last TC meeting, following are two proposals for an 
undelining and crossing out specification that is based on CSS3. The 
proposals are the ones that David Faure posted some time ago (see

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200308/msg00026.html),

except that the value 'thick' of the "text-underline-width" attribute 
has been replaced with a value 'bold' (in proposal 1) or has been added 
to the attribute (in proposal 2).

Proposal 1
----------
We replace the style:text-underline and style:text-crossing-out 
attributes with the following text formatting properties:

style:text-underline-type: none | single | double
style:text-underline-style: none | solid | dotted | dashed | long-dash |
                             dot-dash | dot-dot-dash | wave
style:text-underline-width: auto | bold

style:text-line-through-type: none | single | double
style:text-line-through-style: none | solid | dotted | dashed |
                                long-dash | dot-dash | dot-dot-dash |
                                wave
style:text-line-through-width: auto | bold

Proposal 2
----------
We replace the style:text-underline and style:text-crossing-out 
attributes with the following text formatting properties:

style:text-underline-type: none | single | double
style:text-underline-style: none | solid | dotted | dashed | long-dash |
                             dot-dash | dot-dot-dash | wave
style:text-underline-width: auto | bold | <normal> | <number> |
                             <length> | <percentage> | thin | medium |
                             thick

style:text-line-through-type: none | single | double
style:text-line-through-style: none | solid | dotted | dashed |
                                long-dash | dot-dash | dot-dot-dash |
                                wave
style:text-line-through-width: auto | bold | <normal> | <number> |
                             <length> | <percentage> | thin | medium |
                             thick

The difference between these proposals are only the "text-*-width" 
attributes that in the first case take only the values that are known to 
be supported by existing office applications, and in the second case 
take the full range of CSS3 values.

The meaning of these attributes is the one described in the CSS3 draft:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-text-20030514/

with the following exceptions:
- "style:text-*-style" do not have a value "double". Instead of this, 
the "style:text-underline-type" and "style:text-line-through-type" 
attributes have been introduced that allow to duplicate all line styles.
- "style:text-*-style" has an additional value "long-dash"
- "style:text-*-width" has an additional value "bold". It specifies a 
line width that is calculated  from the font sizes like an "auto" width, 
but is wider than an auto width.

The original proposal also included the attributes text-underline-color 
and text-underline-mode, that are not mentioned here, because they are 
already in the specification (text-underline-mode has been added in the 
25-Aug meeting). In the 25-Aug meeting, it also been agreed to enhance 
the crossing out specification for crossing out with characters and to 
enhance the tab-stop specification to support leading lines. Since the 
proposal for this

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200308/msg00030.html#

was based on David's propoposal, no further changes seem to be required 
to this proposal.

If no one objects, I will start a voting about the above proposals 
tomorrow (Friday, the 26th) with the following options:

1) I agree to proposal 1
2) I agree to proposal 2
3) I disagree to both proposals
4) I concur to the majority of votes

The voting wil be open until Friday, the 3rd of October.

Best regards

Michael