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 Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:28:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4BAAD879.8080705@tiro.com>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
John Daggett wrote:

> 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.

Is the method of simulation specified or recommended? In theory, there 
is font info that can be used to define best scaling and positioning for 
simulated superscript and subscript; in practice, in a lot of fonts (the 
majority?), this information is not accurately set. It's one of those 
vicious circles in which app makers ignore the data, discouraging font 
makers from taking the time to calculate best values, which in turn 
discourages app makers from making use of them.

John Hudson
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 03:29:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:25 GMT