W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-4] font-stretch is unfortunately named

From: Jason Pamental via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:38:52 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-252640667-1476110330-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@Crissov I think the challenge is being mindful of terminology from 
type design and typography while still being accurate. In this case, 
`font-width` is the term that resonates most and aligns more closely 
with existing terminology from the design world, whereas 
`font-stretch` sounds more like something you're generally not 
supposed to do with type (stretch it artificially).

I'm not sure that this is a clear-cut recommendation one way or the 
other, but in balance I've heard from a whole bunch of type 
designers/typographers that they feel `font-width` is preferable, so I
 definitely lean much more in that direction. (Not that it's up to me,
 but I'm doing my best to ensure the design community is 'in the 
conversation', so to speak)

GitHub Notification of comment by jpamental
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 10 October 2016 14:38:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:04 UTC