- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:23:30 -0800
- To: Thomas Phinney <thomas.phinney@gmail.com>, Josef Schmid <e9427749@student.tuwien.ac.at>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 11:34 -0800 9/01/09, Thomas Phinney wrote: >FWIW, in most (though by no means all) fonts, the digits are >monospaced, even if the font is not. > >That being said, I agree that knowing the width of the zero alone, >without knowing for sure that the digits are monospaced, would seem to >be of limited value. > >Regards, > >T off the top of my head perhaps it should be defined to be "the monospaced digit width, if there are both digits and they are monospaced, else 0"? > >On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Josef Schmid ><e9427749@student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> >> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Betreff: Disadvantages of ch unit (was: stability of root em unit spec) >> Datum: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:35:14 +0100 >> An: www-style@w3.org >> >> Hi , all! >> >> Maybe this is discussed/mentioned before by others. >> In that case i apologize for wasting bandwidth. >> >> I wrote: >> >> [some stuff against 're', and a idea for general unit extension] >> >>> And instead of 'ch', 'width of "0"'. >>> (So as special case, you can write 'width of "m" from :root' ;-) >> >> >> In the spec: >> | The width of the "0" (ZERO, U+0030) glyph found in the font for the >> | font size used to render. If the "0" glyph is not found in the font, >> | the average character width may be used. >> >> At first) the 'average char width' can be far from the width of "0". >> Depending of the used font and the capabilities of the browser, >> this can produce very different results. >> (For chinese fonts this is typically near factor 2). >> >> At second) >> Depending of the language and the font used. >> The width of "0" say nothing about the average char width. >> Even not about the average digit width. >> >> In the case you know the factor (for example kanji & fullwidth chars), >> this is cumbersome. (U+FF10) >> But for most you don't know. >> >> If you need it only for digits, than for languages with own digit >> glyphs it does not help. >> (Even in the case of western language, you have often medial digits >> (U+1D7E2??) and mathematically monospaced digits (U+1D7F6) also.) >> >> I thing the simplest solution is to allow the web developer to specify >> the char. >> >> Also useful is the possibility of width from a string. >> >> So i like to propose: >> * width of <string>, where string is in single or double quotes. >> * height of <string> >> In both case it is the needed spaced, and the value depend on >> block-progression, font-size, and other font properties. >> >> I know units with spaces and variable parts are new in CSS, >> but i think if we want such units like ch & rem, than >> the expressiveness should be extend. (Not doing the same fault >> as PHP, which ended up with ~20 different sort keywords.*) >> >>> Sorry for my bad English [, again]. >> >> >> jm2c, >> Jos (btw. What you think about 'e0' as unit name? ;-) ef >> >> ad *) Sorry, hopefully i don't start a programming language >> flame war. >> >> >> >> >> -- David Singer Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 19:26:09 UTC