W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [css3-fonts] subscript/superscript variants

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 06:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: liam@w3.org
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
Message-ID: <1436327816.4497226.1336569826660.JavaMail.root@mozilla.com>
Liam Quin wrote:

> >   And I'm not sure how small caps relates since support for small
> >   caps is defined differently.
> 
> I don't see a good justification for doing small caps differently in
> this regard, though. It's again something where you want the native
> small caps where available.

In general, there's no fallback for font variant features.  In the
subscript/superscript case fallback is needed because subscripts and
superscripts are semantic.  In the small caps case, this is existing
behavior so we're simply keeping it compatible.

Small caps are generally implemented for all lowercase characters
while subscript/superscript glyphs are only supported for a subset of
possible characters.  I don't think theoretical consistency justifies
the cost of requiring per-glyph fallback in the small caps case.

Regards,

John
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 13:24:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:53 GMT