W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1999

Re: font-size and accents, again

From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:52:43 -0800
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <005e01bf3919$5a95de00$15a8a8c0@DPER>
Todd Fahrner wrote:

> Aye - this is the point of font-size-adjust.

Right. I wasn't thinking of font-size-adjust relative to the
historical reference I quoted, but now that I am, I'll point
out that in 17 years producing art for printing I never heard
the term "aspect value," nor did I ever have easy access to
the x-heights of specific faces.

If I'd considered the font-size-adjust property back when it
was proposed, I'd have suggested that the adjustment be
relative to the first-specified font face and not require a
number that is not readily available. I now suggest, based on
the recent postings to this thread, that the values be 'none',
'x-height', 'cap-height', 'font-height', and 'inherit', with
font-height being the total height of the font bounding box,
which may be taller than the font-size. This, to me, seems
more generally useful.

I also question the use of the word "bicameral" in the spec.
What, I wondered, does the latin word for "chamber" have to do
with fonts? Why not "dual-case (uppercase and lowercase)", and
"single-case", which could be easily understood by anyone who
understands the terms "uppercase" and "lowercase?"

David Perrell
Received on Saturday, 27 November 1999 15:53:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:52 UTC