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

Re: [css3-fonts] Minor Comments Part II

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 20:50:10 -0700
Message-ID: <5196FA72.4020003@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/17/2013 12:00 AM, John Daggett wrote:
>
> fantasai wrote:
>
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-fonts/#font-size-prop
>>     # This property indicates the desired height of glyphs from the font.
>>
>> Shouldn't that be "desired size"? Because in vertical typesetting
>> with proportional or non-square glyphs, it's not necessarily the
>> height.
>
> It's generally the height of glyphs and I don't think changing this to "size" adds
> an clarity to the spec.

I was going more for accuracy than clarity here. If it's not always
the height, then we shouldn't use the term height here.

>>     # The actual value of this property may differ from the computed
>>     # value due a numerical value on ‘font-size-adjust’ and the
>>     # unavailability of certain font sizes.
>>
>> I suspect we want to specify here that the availability of font
>> sizes doesn't affect layout or unit conversions. (Alternately,
>> specify that they do.)
>
> This is the same text that is used in 2.1.  The definition of value units
> belongs in the Values spec, no?

It is implicit in the Values spec, yes. But since you're talking about
the difference between computed values and actual values here, I think
it's also worth pointing out whether
   - availability of font sizes affects unit conversions
   - availability of font sizes affects layout

~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 19 May 2013 01:37:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 19 May 2013 01:37:22 UTC