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

Re: [css3-fonts] new editor's draft of CSS3 Fonts spec

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:01:18 -0700
Message-ID: <4BACF66E.6070801@inkedblade.net>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/25/2010 11:18 PM, John Daggett wrote:
> I've posted a new version of the CSS3 Fonts Editor's Draft.
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/
> Changes:
> 1. Added 'all-small-caps' and 'all-petite-caps'.  When a font lacks
>     these   features 'all-small-caps' will simulate small-cap glyphs but
>     'all-petite-caps' will not.

Perhaps, if all-petite-caps is not supported but petite-caps is,
the UA should do a case transformation and use petite-caps?

> 3. Changed property/value names
>     - alt-annotation ==>  annotation
>     - font-lang-sys ==>  font-language-override

This is brilliant. Makes it so much clearer what's going on.

> 5. Restructured the grammar so that including two or more mutually
>     exclusive values in a font-variant rule will result in invalid syntax.
>     The grammar rule for font-variant is now the
>     mother-of-all-productions, read it and weep.


> 6. For values with a numeric selector, the number in parentheses is
>     now optional, so a value of 'swash' implies the same thing as
>     'swash(1)'.  This is convenient for situations where a given feature
>     often has only a single alternate.  This does not apply to styleset.

I think it's a great idea for swash.. I'm wondering, if it really
makes much sense for stylistic and ornament... they strike me
as being more similar to styleset, no?

Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 18:01:48 UTC

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