- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:51:39 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Friday, June 9, 2006, 10:24:33 PM, Ian wrote: IH> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Chris Lilley wrote: >> For the sake of discussion, lets pretend that we are using the >> "Rattlesnake" font family from the CSS spec. "Rattlesnake Regular" >> covers 100, 200, 300 and 400. After all, the precise value would depend >> on the font and what weights it provides. Lets use that with your >> earlier example, and consult CSS 2.1 to find that: >> >> 'bolder' selects the next weight that is assigned to a font that is >> darker than the inherited one. If there is no such weight, it simply >> results in the next darker numerical value (and the font remains >> unchanged), unless the inherited value was '900' in which case the >> resulting weight is also '900'. >> >> So this means that bolder, bolder from 100 goes "Rattlesnake Medium" >> 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. IH> No. The computed value is "one level bolder than 100". If one of the IH> descendant elements (which inherits this value) has 9 font weights, then IH> 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. 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. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2006 18:51:48 UTC