On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:37:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:04:06 -0600 > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > I wonder why they used a border rather than the text-decoration that is > > > there for exactly that purpose? I'm inclined to change the CSS to get > > > reliable underlining for everybody. > > > > Having played with this a bit, I'm guessing they went with the border > > because the text-decoration underline gets mixed up with underscores in > > function names, while the border sits below the underscore. FWIW, I haven't tested it, but it looks like there's a text-underline-offset CSS property that could be used if you do want to use text-decoration for better semantics/portability but prevent it from clashing with the underlines which would impact legibility. > > > > Assuming we want to preserve that behavior, tossing in a line like: > > > > border-bottom-width: 2px; > > > > makes those underlines (that I never even knew existed :) visible. So > > maybe that's the approach to take? > > What I suspect is that this could be related to your monitor's DPI, > and eventually to WM scaling. When you used a larger size, it became > visible. > > I would override CSS and replace a.reference to disable border and > enable text decoration, as this is probably more portable. Assuming the offset property I mentioned above works this sounds sensible to me. I just wouldn't want legibility to be degraded. > > Still, I think it is worth to have separate CSS classes for xref > and broken xref, as if one wants to do a different decoration, > that would be possible. Yeah, makes sense, no drawback in having it really. Thanks, Nícolas
