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

Re: superiors, inferiors, ordinals, etc. (was: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-03-17)

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1021681706.29168.1269485612446.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>

John Hudson wrote:

> I am a little late to this discussion, so perhaps the following
> question has already been discussed:
> What is the expected behaviour when a character string tagged as
> e.g. superior includes some characters for which e.g. OTL <sups>
> substitute glyphs are provided and some for which they are not?

The original description of 'character-transform' was here:


The definition I gave was:


Name:    character-transform
Value:   normal | inferior | ordinal | subscript | superscript
Initial: normal

The values 'subscript', 'superscript', 'inferior', and 'ordinal' imply
the appropriate variant glyph is displayed when available in the font
(OpenType features: subs, supr, sinf, ordn).  When a variant glyph is
not available, a simulated version is synthesized using a reduced form
of the default glyph.  Normal implies use of the default glyph at
normal size.  When the value is anything other than 'normal', the
font-size and vertical-align properties are set to 'inherit'.


So simulated glyphs would be used in the fallback case, either when
the feature was missing from the font or when it was missing for a
given glyph.  I realize this is far from ideal, a mixture of
real substitute glyphs and fake substitutes could occur, but I think it's
better than just using default glyphs.

Also, I'll remove 'inferior' when I add this to the next draft, as you
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 02:54:06 UTC

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