- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:53:23 +0200
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
John Daggett wrote:
> I don't think there's really a better answer here, either way
> there's a visual compromise. In this situation I think it's
> best to keep the solution as simple as possible, so that
> authors can understand the behavior and implementors don't
> need to construct tricky code simply to handle edge cases
> like this.
I agree.
I think the original intent of the CSS WG and browser implementors
is not understandable from a web author's point of view. CSS uses
english keywords like "bolder" and "lighter" to make the language
simple, easy to learn and use. If the user (hear web author) has to
learn a complex algo related to font matching, its browser, plaftorm,
OS, and so on to be able to figure out what means "bolder", we'd better
drop entirely that value, IMHO...
Let me take another example:
<span style="font-weight: lighter;">
<span style="font-weight: bolder;">
<span style="font-weight: bolder;">
AAAA
BBBB
</span>
</span>
</span>
where A is a unicode char rendered using a font that has bold and
extra-bold while B is a unicode chat rendered using a font that has
only bold... What's the weight of As and the weight of Bs ?
</Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 08:54:07 UTC