- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 23:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
Koji Ishii wrote: > It looks like we're getting better mutual understanding. You want > pixel/glyph-level consistency by sacrificing future opportunities, > while I think extensibility and freedom to invent better > implementation is more important as long as layout consistency is > promised, and I'm ok to sacrifice pixel/glyph-level consistency for > it. Am I describing our opinions accurately? No, I want to assure consistent, high-quality results by using existing solutions. Type designers already include glyphs that are appropriate for tatechuyoko display, using those glyphs should be the standard. If you want wiggle room for user agents dealing with obscure edge cases that rarely occur in practice (e.g. #12), fine, add wiggle room for user agents to do what they see fit in those cases. But there's no reason to not do the right thing in the most common cases. This isn't hard. Leaving this feature completely undefined permits the use of *any* algorithm, good or bad. Simply scaling and not using the proper variant glyphs clearly results in poor quality rendering in some cases. By requiring the use of the width variants you're not "sacrificing future opportunities", you're guaranteeing a good minimum level of quality. We should rely on type designers to provide glyphs appropriate for use in tatechuyoko rather than rely on implementors to synthesize something using some form of magic. > I prefer to defer it to implementers for now. If we know no further > invention will be done here in future and wants pixel/glyph-level > consistency, we could add it in future levels. There's no need for "invention" if a type designer has already solved the problem!!! We're not putting a man on the moon here... John
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 06:30:53 UTC