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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:23:33 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0808291123l78e74db2ha05463aa0059ecca@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
Cc: "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> That seems very reasonable, and predictable.
>
> Is there any reason why a UA should employ a "fake bold" when the bold is
> not available? In the old days of bitmapped fonts, that would be done by
> sliding a duplicate of each glyph to the right one pixel, and adjusting its
> used width to match. Nowadays it can be done by adding stokes to each glyph,
> and adjusting its used width to match. This would work for bolder fonts that
> you don't have, but not for lighter fonts that you don't have.


Currently, the proposal echoed by most of the people in this thread isn't
for the font to display as 'fake bold', but rather for the UA to keep
accurate track of desired boldness level even when it can't display the
desired level within that font.  You seem to have recognized that with your
proposal, except that you for some reason start clamping at 900.

(Though, displaying a 'fake bold' may be useful.  That's something for
another discussion, though.)

Also, if the first font on the list is available, but without the correct
> weight, could it look to the next font on the list for the proper weight,
> and use that as a fallback?


I'd think that'd violate 'least surprise' rather powerfully.  Your markup
would be bolder->bolder->bolder->bolder, but the actual display would be
normal->bold->bolder->DIFFERENT FONT.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 18:24:15 GMT

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