W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2009

Re: bolder/lighter defintion

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 10:47:45 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0905181047o2cd77e4egb397085ab697c8aa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Cc: W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Perhaps I am just not "getting" the whole philosophy of what belongs
in the CSS spec vs what is UA implementation details. I am of course
new to this part of things, even if I do have a wee bit of font

But until somebody tells me differently, I am going to assume that one
of the overarching principles of the spec is to try to make it so that
following the spec well will generate compatible UA implementations.
In that vein, some more comments below....

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> There are probably other issues with this chart lookup, but the one
>> that leaps to mind is assuming that all fonts will have values that
>> fall in nice even 100s. Other values are not terribly unusual (for
>> various reasons mostly related to application architecture limitations
>> on Windows).
> The CSS font-weight property does not take arbitrary numeric values,
> only "nice even 100s".

That would arguably be a bug in the CSS font-weight property spec, then.

>  Mapping those to whatever's in the font file is presumably the UA's problem.

Why? That seems like yet another way of ensuring that different UAs
get different results with the same CSS+fonts.

Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 17:48:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:26 UTC