- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
Koji Ishii wrote: > Sylvain said he's perfectly fine to allow additional tweaks if doing > so produces better results for cases such as #12 and fantasia's > example. Your hypothetical edge case (#12) is about what to do when specific characters lack width variants. Elika's edge case is about combinations of half-width glyphs not being better than scaling default proportional glyphs. I've already posted a response regarding Elika's example, as has Sylvain. My response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0139.html Sylvain's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0141.html My examples showing why scaling proportional glyphs doesn't lead to consistent results: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Jul/0014.html I don't think the behavior in either of these edge cases justifies making the default behavior be anything other than "use width variants if they exist for all characters, scale otherwise". Sylvain put it best: If the author is requesting a small chunk of text to be laid out in a manner for which the font he has *chosen* includes specifically designed glyphs I think the small-caps analogy is apt. I do not believe we claim the UA should make up those glyphs for him using proprietary magic. John Daggett
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 13:37:07 UTC