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

Re: [css3-fonts] Behdad's Feedback on CSS Fonts Module Level 3 Editor's Draft 5 April 2010

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:32:14 -0700
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <4B77B6DD-80D7-4303-AAED-F74B9774C23A@gmail.com>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>

On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:50 PM, John Daggett wrote:

> 
>> Right, synthesizing it by running a transform on individual glyphs
>> would make sense.  You can't do that with CSS transforms, though.
> 
> Er, just watch me! ;)
> 
> Try this in Safari, Chrome, Opera, FF4b2+:
> http://people.mozilla.org/~jdaggett/tests/xtransform.html
> 

But then you can't use auto widths (although you could pretty well simulate them with percentages and 'box-sizing:border-box', I guess). 

Still, it's a pretty complicated way to specify condensed or expanded type reliably, without a way to use it as fallback for when you want an actual condensed or expanded font if it's available. Which means  that if I really wanted condensed text, I'd have to use a transform hack instead of 'font-stretch', and 'font-stretch' would become useless.

I think I would rather have glyph-level synthesized font-stretch when condensed/expanded fonts are not available. I would not want drastic differences in the typographic "color" (not to be confused with actual color) and space occupied by text to be so dependent on whether or not the use has a particular font (especially since most people do not have condensed/expanded versions of every typeface the author might want to use). That seems just as important to me as synthesizing obliques for 'font-style: italic | oblique'.
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 16:32:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:30 GMT