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: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:20:25 -0400
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E6A50DA4427@MAILR001.mail.lan>
During the discussion, fantasai made a new edit. How good does this look to you all?

   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes/#text-combine-horizontal


   # The UA must ensure that the combined advance width of the composition
   # fits within 1em by compressing the combined text if necessary. (This
   # does not necessarily mean that the glyphs will fit within 1em, as some
   # glyphs are designed to draw outside their geometric boundaries.)
   # OpenType implementations must use width-specific variants (hwid/twid/qwid)
   # to compress text in cases where those variants are available for all
   # characters in the composition. Otherwise, the UA may use any means to
   # compress the text, including substituting half-width, third-width,
   # and/or quarter-width glyphs provided by the font, using other font
   # features designed to compress text horizontally, scaling the text
   # geometrically, or any combination thereof.

I think this edit is great and satisfies all requirements came up in the discussion so far.

If we all are fine with this text, we can close this issue.

/koji

-----Original Message-----
From: Florian Rivoal [mailto:florian@rivoal.net] 
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:16 AM
To: www-style@w3.org; John Daggett
Subject: Re: [css3-writing-modes] Examples of normal, unscaled glyphs work better than width-variant glyphs for text-combine-horizontal

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:03:22 +0200, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
wrote:

> The majority of common Japanese
> platform and publishing fonts ship with fixed-width digits (*not*
> proportional!) and the default glyphs are typically wider than 0.5em.
> I did some quick measurements for common Windows, OSX and publishing 
> fonts.  [...]
>
> Only the last font in the list had variable-width digit glyphs and 
> those are all wider than 0.5em.
>
> So on average for these fonts, the width of two-digit pairs will be 
> roughly 1.2em and scaling will occur.

At this point in the debate, I think I have seen enough arguments on both sides to form an opinion. This discussion was worth having, as it really did clarify the subtleties of what we're dealing with, but I think we should now be able to resolve.

I side with John. I believe the other use cases defended by Koji and Fantasai can be address by additional controls introduced in a later level.

  - Florian

Received on Saturday, 27 July 2013 15:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 27 July 2013 15:21:05 UTC