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

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

From: Simetrical <simetrical@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:00:35 -0400
Message-ID: <7c2a12e20808271700x78509fefyc51809199671e71c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're looking specifically at weight changes, and measuring the number of
> defects where a weight change is expected to occur and does not.  I don't
> believe this is a useful metric, though.  Consider this markup:
>
> <a>
>   Text A
>   <b style="font-weight: bolder;">
>     Text B
>     <c style="font-weight: bolder;">
>       Text C
>     </c>
>     Text D
>   </b>
> </a>
>
> In an ideal world, Text C would be extra-bold.  If your font does not have
> an extra-bold weight, though, C will be merely bold.  This is completely
> uncontroversial, and clear from both spec and common sense.  However,
> according to your metric this example has two defects as well, as Text C
> should be darker than Text B (it isn't) and Text D should be lighter than
> Text C (it isn't).  Would your conclusion, then, be to lighten Text D?

A reasonable counterpoint.

> Simple real-world example - nested <strong> tags, for extra-special
> importance.

Yes, but when would you nest two <strong> tags in each other and
*then* have a font-weight: lighter inside?  What would be a snippet of
HTML that does that and isn't obviously contrived?
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 00:01:15 GMT

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