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 20:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1051432359.29262.1269488938825.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>

John Hudson 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.

Ideally this would be specified normatively so that it would be as
consistent as possible across user agents.  If you have the details
for how this should be done or can point me at a reference for this,
that would be great.  I was planning on experimenting with this once
we have a partial implementation up and running.
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 03:49:31 GMT

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