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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:58:16 -0700
Message-Id: <273C0ED2-1A82-4A30-AFF3-211F0ECDC2D8@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:23 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> 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.

I think the UA should keep accurate track of the desired boldness  
level, as per Burt's proposal, regardless. I'm just adding that if it  
can also do a fake bold or reasonable substitution, then it should do  
so where able.

>   You seem to have recognized that with your proposal, except that  
> you for some reason start clamping at 900.

That wasn't me actually.

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

Nothing wrong with having it as part of this discussion.

>
> 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.

Different but similar, if it is on the same list. And, of course, the  
correct weight. Who cares if it is Helvetica instead of Arial for the  
extra-bold?

>
>
> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 23:59:10 GMT

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