W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Another cut on the Character-Transform Property

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:10:47 -0700
Message-ID: <4BB8D627.2090505@tiro.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Richard Fink wrote:

>> text-elevation

> I counter with:
> text-relation

I don't find either of these terms descriptive or even suggestive of 
superscript and subscript (leaving aside ordinals as simply a special 
case of superscript). In the first place, we're not talking about doing 
something to the text but about characters within the text (an example 
of actual text elevation and relative positioning would be Ruby 
notation). In the second place, elevation describes half of what happens 
in superscript, and none of what happens in subscript.

Thinking more about 'script-style' -- which has precedence at least 
among typesetters of mathematics (in MS math layout, there is even an 
OTL feature called Script Style <ssty>, which accesses -script glyph 
variants that may be scaled and positioned according to font-level 
constants) --, and thinking about the etymologies of superscript and 
subscript -- literally 'above writing' and 'below writing' --, I'm 
leaning toward something like

	relative-script
or
	reduced-script


John Hudson
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:11:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:26 GMT