- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:28:38 +0200
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- CC: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 8:11:58 PM, Bert wrote: BB> A mixture of editorial and other comments on BB> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/ BB> a) Section 3.7 says that 'font-stretch' is reset by the 'font' BB> shorthand, but cannot be set. But it seems straightforward and BB> unambiguous to allow it in the shorthand. I recall that when we originally added the font-stretch property, it was not added to the shorthand precisely because it was not possible to unambiguously add it. Hence the decision that the shorthand *resets* all font properties, but ones added after CSS1 can't be *set* with the shorthand. Has that changed? BB> b) In answer to the open issue in section 4.3: no, there is no need for BB> a registry until new formats are defined at a rate of one every month or BB> so... So far, WOFF is the first new format in nine years. We can easily BB> keep up with that through the normal CSS standardization process. I tend to agree. BB> c) Section 4.3 says the <font-face-name> can optionally be enclosed in BB> quotes. Should there be a note that certain characters must be escaped BB> otherwise? Should, e.g., commas be escaped to preserve some BB> extensibility? Should the syntax be the same as for 'font-family' BB> (defined in CSS 2.1)? Suspect it would be better to have the same definition. BB> d) In section 4.3, example IX, is the 'local(Gentium)' meant to be a BB> font face name? It looks like a family name. It does. BB> g) Section 6.1: Is this property needed? The UA can turn kerning off if BB> it (or the user) wants, but there doesn't seem any need for the author BB> to turn it of. I can see that authors would want to disable kerning somethimes, so this has value. BB> h) Section 6.4: Titling caps may look wrong in a caps-and-lowercase BB> word, maybe there should be a note that this feature is typically used BB> together with 'text-transform: uppercase'. I agree. BB> i) Section 6.5: Wouldn't spelling out the names to 'lining-numerals', BB> 'oldstyle-numerals', etc. make them easier to remember? But also longer. I think the current names are fine. BB> j) Section 6.5, under "diagonal-fractions": the illustration makes it BB> look as if the the three characters "1/3" turn into a ligature, Not a ligature, necessarily, but it does lay out a series of figures separated by a slash as a fraction (and that should be stated explicitly in the description) BB> but that is not the case. It is the case. "The frac table maps sets of figures separated by slash or fraction characters to corresponding fraction glyphs in the font. These may be precomposed fractions (GSUB lookup type 4) or arbitrary fractions (GSUB lookup type 1)." http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/features_fj.htm#frac for an example of use, including arbitrary fractions, see http://www.indesignsecrets.com/downloads/OTFractionsGuide.pdf which has such things as 567/1,432 BB> The feature chooses between two styles for the BB> predefined fractions in Unicode: ¼ ½ ¾ ⅓ ⅔ ⅕ ⅖, etc. No, it doesn't. BB> k) Appendix A doesn't seem to belong in this spec. The "same-origin" BB> restriction is also incompatible with W3C's Recommended Web architecture BB> (see, e.g., section 2.5 in "Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume BB> One" at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#uri-opacity) I disagree. It needs to be specified. Although not necessarily in this specification. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 16:28:46 UTC