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

Re: Another cut on the Character-Transform Property

From: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:03:33 -0500
Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <495969BF-BCE8-4119-81DE-A641033517D7@gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>

On Apr 4, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:

>
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:10 AM, John Hudson wrote:
>
>>>> text-elevation
>>
>>> I counter with:
>>> text-relation
>>
>> 	relative-script
>> or
>> 	reduced-script
>
> To me, 'glyph-position' is meaningful (so is 'text-elevation', even  
> if it was meant as a joke). The others, not so much.
>
> When I see 'script-style', I think first of JavaSCRIPT and cascading  
> STYLE sheets. Sure you can use JavaScript to style your elements,  
> but <rhetorical>what does that have to do with these reduced-sized  
> and vertically-moved versions of the characters?</rhetorical>

The title of the section is "Positional character forms" -- so perhaps  
'character-position'.  'glyph-position' is probably better.

Can we add font-weight to the list of affected properties?  A  
superscript / subscript is often made slightly heavier to make it  
pleasing to the eye.

Perry
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 19:04:08 GMT

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