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

Re: [css3-writing-modes] Examples of normal, unscaled glyphs work better than width-variant glyphs for text-combine-horizontal

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:25:39 -0700
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE0ACFE1.8184%galineau@adobe.com>


On 7/16/13 5:03 AM, "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

>> From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:galineau@adobe.com]
>> On 7/15/13 3:43 AM, "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hope these examples make sense to agree that there are cases where the
>> >use of width-variant does not produce the optimal results.
>> 
>> I don't think that was ever in question. I thought the debate was about
>>resolving on the
>> proper *default* behavior. If with-variant glyphs work well for the
>>main use-case then it
>> seems an appropriate default.
>> (Defaults, by definition, are not required to work well in all cases).
>> Experts at both Adobe and Microsoft have told me that a) 2-3 digits is
>>the main TCY
>> use-case and b) width-variant glyphs, if any, should be used for this
>>scenario. So unless
>> we disagree on the feature's main use-case I'm not sure what prevents a
>>resolution of
>> John's proposal?
>
>I agree that we should work on main use-case and that's what I'm talking
>about.
>
>I agree with a), but with b) only under condition where glyphs are not
>narrow enough. Can you check with the experts if they prefer normal
>glyphs v.s. width-variant glyphs if the normal glyphs are narrow enough?

Consistent feedback I have always received is to use the width-variant
glyphs if they exist. 

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 17:26:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 July 2013 17:26:06 UTC