W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ppl@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Customer requirement #1: Decrease font size

From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:24:05 -0500
To: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca>
Cc: public-ppl@w3.org
Message-ID: <1361679845.4624.74.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Sat, 2013-02-23 at 20:50 -0400, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> [...]

> If the formatter exposed such an API, it could be programmatically 
> controlled by a client app, which would receive events that it has 
> registered for, and be able to act on them.

Is that something that's productive to standardise between
implementations?  In Java, C#, C, C++, python?

> The API *is* the formatter, just a different interface to it.
No, the formatter is he formatter. An API is an interface to something.

The reason we have a declarative language is that you can use it with
lots of different back-end formatters, not all of which have compatible
APIs or ways of looking at the world.

I think this was probably a good choice, with vendor-specific
enhancements also making a lot of sense.

If you consider JavaScript to be (in part) an API for a Web browser, you
can see that there's hundreds, maybe thousands of person-years of effort
gone into developing the specs, and yet Web browsers are much less
sophisticated formatters than print engines, and that's only in one
programming language. Right now CSS+WebApps have been thinking about the
callbacks for asynchronous font loading events, but there's not yet any
API to get at the OpenType GSUB tables for glyph substitution, you can't
move control points around or add glyphs on the fly (it'll come). Where
do you stop?



-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 04:24:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 24 February 2013 04:24:10 GMT