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

Re: Advanced font features and related text features in CSS levels 3 and 4 [css3-fonts] [CSS3 Text] [css3-text-layout] [css4-fonts] [css4-text] [css4-text-layout]

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:39:07 -0700
Message-ID: <48515F3B.10505@inkedblade.net>
To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
CC: W3C CSS specification-development discussion <www-style@w3.org>

Etan Wexler wrote:
> 
> Håkon Wium Lie wrote (in 
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/18510.35517.739848.739689@opera.com>):
> 
>> In [1] I proposed:
>>
>>    font-variant-caps: normal | small-caps          /* '-' added */
>>    font-variant-digits: normal | oldstyle | lining
>>    font-variant-width: normal | proportional
>>    font-variant-swash: normal | swash
>>    font-variant-ligatures: normal | standard | alternate
>>
>> It seems that our [approaches are] similar, although I [believe] that 
>> using
>> 'font-variant' as a shorthand property is beneficial.
> 
> I have no objection to using 'font-variant' as a shorthand, but, given 
> that we can extend the 'font' shorthand, I don’t find a compelling 
> benefit in using 'font-variant' as a shorthand. In any case, I do feel 
> strongly that naming the new font properties with the prefix 
> “font-variant-” instead of “font-” is wrong because such naming serves 
> only to lengthen the names and not to clarify.
> 
>> This is all about variants, no?
> 
> Yes, this is all about variants, but so, too, are the properties that 
> deal with font posture ('font-style'), font weight ('font-weight'), font 
> density ('font-stretch'), and font size ('font-size'). You could also 
> truthfully say that this is all about styles. The truth of that 
> statement doesn’t recommend that we use “font-style-” as a prefix for 
> the font properties. If your stance is that the names of shorthands 
> should be the prefixes for their respective constituent properties, then 
> I disagree with you. We already have the example of the 'font' 
> shorthand, of which the 'line-height' property is a constituent.

To be more precise, these are all about glyph variants within the same
font family+style. I agree with Håkon that these should be expansions
of the 'font-variant' property. It is much more convenient than using
the 'font' shorthand, which resets line-height, font-family, and font-size.
Using 'font-variant' as a shorthand allows those properties to cascade
through untouched, which is usually what you want.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 17:39:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:07 GMT