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?

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 18:01:48 GMT

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