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

RE: Another cut on the Character-Transform Property

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:21:33 -0700
To: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE2F61DA5FA23945A4EA99A212B15795239E238DAE@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>
At the risk of re-opening a thread that was not productive, I have thought of one more alternative to "character-transform". (This topic is on the agenda for discussion today which is why a message now.)

Since "character-transform" seems too general why not "character-shift" for that is the "transform" that is being performed. I will admit, however, that this name still does not really suggest that the property causes the use of special characters within the font rather than artificially simulating these characters by a size and vertical-alignment change. It just seems more suggestive of what is being done. (I would also be happy with something like, "use-font-shift" which is more descriptive of what is being done.)

Steve Zilles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Perry Smith
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:04 PM
> To: Brad Kemper
> Cc: John Hudson; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Another cut on the Character-Transform Property
> 
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 21 April 2010 16:12:52 GMT

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