W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2006

Re: SVG12: computed value of font-weight vs uDOM

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:24:37 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0607240115110.2816@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>


I note that ths comment never made it to the disposition of comments. I 
hope this oversight can be corrected.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Chris Lilley wrote:
> >>
> >> then "Rattlesnake Bold". Does that result in 600 or 700 (the same face
> >> covers both)? It seems that it should take 600. So for this case, the
> >> computed value would be 600.
> >
> > No. The computed value is "one level bolder than 100". If one of the 
> > descendant elements (which inherits this value) has 9 font weights, then
> > its "200" value will be used, not 600.
> 
> In that case, please clarify the CSS 2.1 specification so that the 
> interpretation you have given naturally follows from the text, and note 
> this change explicitly.

CSS2.1 section 2.6 already specifies this explicitly.


> In the example given, 200 is assigned to a font but it is not darker 
> than the inherited one. Your interpretation directly contradicts the 
> specification.

My interpretation seems consistent with the specification; I would suggest 
that it is in fact the SVG spec that is inconsistent.

Since SVG has resolved a number of inconsistencies with other 
specifications -- XML Events, DOM Core, etc -- by referring to those 
specifications normatively instead of copying, and then changing, the 
definitions as was previously done, I would like to request that the SVG 
specification similarly simply refer to the CSS specification instead of 
redefining properties such as 'font-weight'.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 01:24:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:35 GMT