[css-inline] naming of text-top and text-bottom baselines

[dauwhe]

Should text-top be renamed text-over?
Should text-bottom be renamed text-under?

Maybe it’s better not to use those terms for consistency with legacy vertical-align.

[litherum]

If they are indeed baselines, we should probably match the terminology in fonts.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/baselinetags

https://developer.apple.com/fonts/TrueType-Reference-Manual/RM06/Chap6bsln.html

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed [css-inline] naming of text-top and text-bottom baselines, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: No change

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: [css-inline] naming of text-top and text-bottom baselines
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/860
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/860
<dael> fantasai: We have text-top and -bottom of veritical align
<dael> fantasai: Not really top and bottom in vertical text. Should we rename?
<dael> fantasai: My position is where in spec using over and under terms keywords in vertical-align no point in renaming. Any new properties with the new keywords should be consistent. Don't rename the syntax, use over and under in spec
<Rossen_> q?
<dael> AmeliaBR: We have keywords for this, text-before-edge and -after-edge which are legacy kewyrods for SVG. If there's a desire for logical names we could undeprecate
<dael> fantasai: Yeah but don't match anything else in css. In veritical lr more before and over edge don't coincide. I'm not sure which SVG thinks is what.
<dael> fantasai: Difference between flow and line relative keywords
<dbaron> s/veritical lr more/vertical-lr mode/
<dael> Rossen_: myles brought up good point on issue about aligning with naming from font terms
<dael> fantasai: Yeah. Fonts uses top and bottom I think. It's so deep it's exposed to author of font file in abbr form
<dael> fantasai: I think so far removed from terms web authors use it's effectively not relevant
<dael> koji: THey are very different. Font is physical so top is not always over. CSS always takes text-top and -bottom as logical but in fonts text-top is physical
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-inline-3/#baseline-types
<dael> fantasai: I don't think we should rename or alias keywords. Stick with text-top and -bottom. In spec prose use text over and under. THat's what I drafted ^
<dael> AmeliaBR: Given we're stuck with prop being vertical-align having keywords as desc from vertical alignment is prob okay.
<dael> fantasai: Yeah, that's where I landed. Close no change
<dael> Rossen_: Are you saying current text-over?
<dael> fantasai: Current spec does not add new keywords. Uses text-top and -bottom. Doesn't switch over anything. Spec prose when discussing uses text over or ideographic over in descriptions
<dael> Rossen_: I see
<dael> Rossen_: And leaving no change is closer to font terms as well besides weirdness koji mentioned
<dael> Rossen_: Prop is no change, leave as text-top and text-bottom
<dael> Rossen_: Thoughts or objections?
<dael> koji: Confirm- I think we're adding keywords for ideographic-top and -bottom?
<dael> fantasai: I think we don't have -top, we just have ideographic which is the bottom edge. Inherited from SVG. NOt adding any keywords for top and bottom
<dael> chris: b/c they were originally baseline
<dael> Rossen_: Objections?
<dael> RESOLVED: No change