W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2008

RE: [css3-fonts] Nested 'bolder' and 'lighter' question

From: Molly E. Holzschlag <molly@molly.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:26:33 -0700
To: "'Simetrical'" <simetrical@gmail.com>, "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004a01c9088b$9476f4b0$bd64de10$@com>

> The question is one of intent, I think.  What are some cases where
> this actually comes up?  What sorts of semantics would most often
> dictate the use of nested bolder/lighter?  I can't come up with an
> example that's not pretty contrived.

This, too has been bothering me. I've never seen (or imagined) a real-life use for this. This is why I suggested "normal" because nesting spans to achieve a visual result is a no-no in best practices. From a typographic point of view, the only way I could see a scenario like this playing out would be to apply color, not font weight. 

Imagine a paragraph that has three different font weights being used. It can easily become unreadable.

FWIW,
M

-=-
Molly E. Holzschlag
Web Standards and Practices Education and Outreach
Molly.Com, Inc.

http://molly.com/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Simetrical
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:17 PM
> To: fantasai
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-fonts] Nested 'bolder' and 'lighter' question
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:23 PM, fantasai
> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> > fantasai wrote:
> >>
> >> Given
> >>
> >>  <a>
> >>    Text A
> >>    <b style="font-weight: bolder">
> >>      Text B
> >>      <c style="font-weight: bolder">
> >>        Text C
> >>        <d style="font-weight: lighter">
> >>          Text D
> >>        </d>
> >>      </c>
> >>    </b>
> >>  </a>
> >>
> >> If you have three different weights in your font (normal, bold,
> >> extra-bold) then
> >>  - Text A will be normal
> >>  - Text B will be bold
> >>  - Text C will be extra-bold
> >>  - Text D will be bold
> >>
> >> If you have only two weights in your font (normal, bold) then
> >>  - Text A will be normal
> >>  - Text B will be bold
> >>  - Text C will be bold
> >>
> >> What should Text D be? Bold or normal?
> 
> Well, if someone is using "bolder" n times in a row, they probably
> assume that there are at least n fonts bolder than the default one.
> So the intended effect is almost certainly the first case: normal,
> bold, extra-bold, bold.  Otherwise, why would you have the second
> "bolder"?  So the ideal behavior is clear.
> 
> The problem is: what's the closest we can get to this ideal?  One
> angle would be to say that the closest you could get is normal, bold,
> bold, bold.  This is an obvious route.  The problem is, then you're
> effectively ignoring two distinctions you were asked to make: two of
> the rules are no-ops.  If you make it normal, bold, bold, normal, then
> only one of the rules is a no-op, which is in a way closer.  To take
> this line of thought to an extreme, an even closer representation
> would be (assuming a "light" font exists) light, normal, bold, normal,
> which preserves all rules -- just shifted down.  (But that's not
> really practical.)
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 21:28:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:11 GMT