- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Christoph Päper wrote: > If ‘vertical-align’ is either ‘sub’ or ‘super’ we can guess the proper > transformation to do, so authors should only have to specify ‘auto’. > > character-transform: _normal_ | auto (inherited) > > ‘normal’: -subs -sinf -supr -ordn / ‘No Vertical Position’ > ‘auto’: +subs +sinf / ‘Inferiors’ where “vertical-align: sub”, > +supr +ordn / ‘Superiors’ where “vertical-align: super” I don't think it's such a good idea to key the behavior of one property on the value of another, it really hides the meaning of the property. I realize the definition I proposed also has side effects on other properties but it's minimal and only for compatibility sake. > PS: I’m probably ignorant or lazy again, but why is this not a > ‘font-variant-*’ property? No, that's a perfectly reasonable question. The reason is that subscripts/superscripts are semantic in nature, a subscript/superscript style should result in subscripted/superscripted text, whether or not the font supports subscript/superscript glyphs as a feature. For other font-variant-* properties the fallback is always just the default glyph when a feature is not supported, the idea being these reflect a stylization and not something that alters the content. Lots of gray areas here but I think subscripts/superscripts clearly are part of the content and need to be handled differently.
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 02:31:28 UTC