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

Re: [css3-fonts] Minor Comments

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 22:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <1928057422.16366178.1369026843493.JavaMail.root@mozilla.com>
fantasai wrote:

> >> Forgot another comment on this section...
> >>
> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-fonts/#font-stretch-prop
> >>     # The scale is relative, so a face with a font-stretch value
> >>     # higher in the list above should never appear wider.
> >>
> >> I think you mean s/relative/monotonic/
> >
> > Nope, that's not what I mean. ;)  It is monotonic but the point is
> > that the scale is not absolute, it's up to the type designer to decide
> > what's expanded vs. semi-expanded.
> 
> Ok, but the explanation of "The scale is relative" (i.e. the "so
> ..." clause) is not explaining that at all, it's explaining that the
> scale is monotonic. So it sounds like you have two points here:
> 
>    * the scale is monotonic within a face, "so a face with a
>      font-stretch value higher in the list should never appear wider".
>    * the scale is relative to a particular face, so an expanded face
>      in one face might be narrower than a semi-expanded face in another
> 
> Is that catching your intent?

No, I think the current wording is sufficient, relative is generally
understood to be the antonym of absolute and the use of monotonic is
unnecessary given the context. You seem to want to word it differently
but I don't see anything that really communicates anything in a better
way, just a different way.

Cheers,

John Daggett
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 05:14:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 May 2013 05:14:38 UTC