- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:01:41 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Wasn't the main argument about preferring font-variant-east-asian: ruby? I don't think it was the main argument back then, but it is certainly worth considering now. `font-variant-east-asian: ruby` seems aimed at a slightly different problem: both our spec and the open-type spec seem to advocate using in on regular kana to get better visual pairing between the base text and the ruby text. (css-text does that by showing an example of the word しんかんせん, which does not contain small kana, with thicker glyphs, and [open type documentation](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/features_pt#tag-ruby) suggests using it on U+3042, which is not a small kana). That said, it is true that it could also be used to show large glyphs for small kana. Should it: * pro: It allows, on a per-font basis, to pick a different way to cope with overly small kana * pro: It exists, so there's no need to introduce anything new in css * con: Doing it with a text-transform works even if the font fails to download * con: Doing it with a text-transform works even if there's no available font that uses this open-type feature that way -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3143#issuecomment-424568688 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2018 03:01:42 UTC