W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2013

Re: real vs. synthetic width glyphs

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:20:40 -0700
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE01BE53.7620%galineau@adobe.com>

On 7/9/13 11:51 AM, "Florian Rivoal" <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 20:09:25 +0200, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
>> By 'if using 1/n glyphs is not optimal' do you mean 'if *the author*
>> not want to use the 1/n glyphs provided by the font'? If so then yes,
>> it's
>> absolutely fine for them to be able to override the default behavior.
>> It's
>> also fine for UAs to do something interesting when no such glyphs are
>> present in the specified font. I do not think any of this is really the
>> issue though.
>> The argument is about *requiring* interoperable behavior when the font
>> does provides 1/n glyphs. My understanding of the resolution is that it
>> does not actually do so.
>My understanding of the resolution is the same as yours. As requiring the
>of special glyphs when they are all available leaves the door open for
>#12 use case, I think the only question left is Elika's "MI" use case.
>In the example posted by John, I agree that MI is nicer in case (5) than
>but MM is not. So this could indeed be a reason to let the UA be smart.
>But should
>that be by default, or opt in? Given that MI isn't the main use case, and
>for digits (which are), (4) is always better than (5), I must admit that
>find the opt-in solution tempting. But at least now, I can see that there
>situations where all variant glyphs are available but using them isn't
>  - Florian

If the opt-in model is right for the main use-case *and* it is consistent
the rest of CSS then why wouldn’t it be required? 

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 20:21:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC