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

Re: [css3-fonts] font-variant-numeric

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:18:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4BAA4961.8070000@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/24/2010 08:37 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> On March 24, 2010 5:36 AM John Daggett wrote:
>> John Hudson wrote:
>>> On the subject of terminology in
>>>     http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#font-variant-numeric-prop
>>> I find the use of the term 'font rendering' in this document
>>> unfortunate, and would like to request that it be changed. For font
>>> developers -- who spend a lot of time these days talking about what
>>> happens to text on screen -- rendering refers to glyph painting
>>> (typically some form of rasterisation). Hence, we talk about e.g.
>>> different kinds of rendering engines and models, Apple Quartz
>> rendering
>>> vs. Microsoft ClearType rendering, hinting for different rendering
>>> environments, etc.
>>> The kind of glyph substitution and positioning behaviours and
>> properties
>>> described in the draft document are what we would call text layout,
>> not
>>> font rendering.
>> Yeah, I struggled over what term to use here, "font rendering" was by
>> no means the ideal term.
>> What I've called "font rendering properties" are properties not used
>> for selecting a face within a family but instead properties applied
>> when picking glyphs to display.  "Font feature properties" is probably
>> what I should use instead.
> Would the generic term "glyph substitution" work (instead of font
> rendering) to describe the effect of font features and the font-variant
> properties?

Depending on the context, you might go with "glyph selection" rather than
"glyph substitution". Substitution implies that you've got some default
that you're substituting for.

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 17:18:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:34 UTC