- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 07:03:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The Working Group just discussed `oblique angle for synthesis in vertical text`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: skew glyphs around their center` * `RESOLVED: 5 and 6 for italic and obliques with positive angles https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2018Jul/att-0003/italics-vertical.png` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <fantasai> Topic: oblique angle for synthesis in vertical text<br> <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2869<br> <frremy> fantasai: there has been a lot of comments in that discussion here<br> <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2018Jul/0003.html<br> <frremy> astearns: let's box this to twenty minutes<br> <frremy> fantasai: when we are synthetizing oblique in vertical text, what are we synthetizing<br> <frremy> fantasai: we want to be consistent<br> <fantasai> s/consistent/consistent across UAs, at least/<br> <frremy> koji: the complex part is that japanese is right slanting<br> <frremy> koji: but that this doesn't work well for Roman fonts<br> <frremy> myles: (draws on the board)<br> <frremy> koji: japanese publishers do 3 or 4<br> <fantasai> Looking at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2018Jul/att-0003/italics-vertical.png<br> <frremy> so word processors do 5 or 6<br> <frremy> japanese publishers that this looks weird, but every word processor does that<br> <frremy> florian: there is also a different between italic and oblique<br> <frremy> astearns: there are not italic fonts going in the backwards direction<br> <frremy> fantasai: plus sometimes roman text will be upright<br> <frremy> fantasai: and if the font provides a value for italic, the characters will have different slanting<br> <frremy> fantasai: I don't think this makes a lot of sense for us to change<br> <frremy> myles: if we want behaviors like 4, then font-style will have to be "smart" depending on the glyphs<br> <frremy> myles: that's not easy<br> <frremy> florian: this is only for when we synthesize, right?<br> <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2018Jul/att-0003/top-to-right-prohibited-chars.png<br> <frremy> myles: right, if the font says something, we will do what the font says<br> <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2018Jul/att-0003/top-to-right-em-dash.png<br> <frremy> fantasai: (just pasted links about interactions)<br> <frremy> myles: authors can change the angle though<br> <frremy> fantasai: yes, but the axis is also something we could change<br> <frremy> fantasai: see 7 or 8<br> <frremy> fantasai: in these cases, the japanese chars are slanted horizontally, but the roman text is slanted vertically<br> <frremy> fantasai: in respect to the glyph<br> <frremy> florian: when you synthesize, do you this for everything?<br> <frremy> myles: yeah, we would do something like 3<br> <frremy> koji: that seems wrong for roman though, right?<br> <frremy> myles: oh, right, I meant 5<br> <frremy> florian: but that is wrong for japanese<br> <frremy> florian: for oblique we should do 3 or 5<br> <frremy> florian: for italics, we should 4 or 6<br> <frremy> astearns: what do browsers do?<br> <frremy> fantasai: all over the place<br> <frremy> florian: (explains some of the weird results some browsers exhibit)<br> <frremy> PROPOSAL: when synthesizing oblique, the origin is the center of the glyph<br> <frremy> astearns: any objection?<br> <frremy> dauwhe: but that seems weird for roman, doesn't it?<br> <frremy> florian: you get a bit of overlap on each side, instead on overlap around only one side<br> <frremy> dauwhe: I'm not sure this is an improvement<br> <frremy> myles: it is, because there will be twice as less layout overlap, there will be less visual overlap<br> <frremy> fantasai: also, when you center the text, it will look centered<br> <frremy> (heycam is right)<br> <frremy> astearns: any objection?<br> <heycam> s/dauwhe/plinss/<br> <frremy> RESOLVED: skew glyphs around their center<br> <frremy> florian: (re-explains his proposal for the directionality of italic vs oblique)<br> <frremy> fantasai: the problem is that some text could have a mix of upright and not-upright<br> <frremy> fantasai: so specifying an angle will mess one or the other<br> <frremy> florian: but roman will probably have its italic defined<br> <frremy> koji: are you saying we should change angle to content?<br> <frremy> koji: that seems weird?<br> <frremy> myles: we could also use transforms<br> <frremy> florian: 3 seems what publishers want<br> <frremy> koji: I think what publishers want could be achieved with an angle<br> <frremy> florian: but for italics, this is gonna be a mess, because the italic will come by default for roman text<br> <frremy> koji: but really, what is usually done, is use the fullwidth chars, and not use upright<br> <frremy> florian: upright italic isn't really a thing<br> <frremy> fantasai: so the upright text will have the italic/oblique from the cjk font<br> <frremy> fantasai: so koji is right, it's probably fine not to do the right thing, because fonts can do the right thing<br> <frremy> astearns: time's up<br> <frremy> astearns: can we resolve?<br> <frremy> fantasai: 6, falling back to 5?<br> <frremy> myles: let's resolve on that, and we have two other issues we didnt' get to today<br> <frremy> myles: which will be about upright etc<br> <frremy> PROPOSAL: 5 and 6 for italic and obliques with positive angles<br> <frremy> astearns: any objection?<br> <frremy> RESOLVED: 5 and 6 for italic and obliques with positive angles https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2018Jul/att-0003/italics-vertical.png<br> <frremy> florian: this is what IE/Edge is doing<br> <frremy> frremy: (yay!)<br> <frremy> astearns: and negative angle goes the other way?<br> <frremy> fantasai: yes, that is how it usually works<br> <fantasai> action fantasai: file issue about what does upright latin do, and how to do other-axis obliques<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2869#issuecomment-402034497 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2018 07:04:01 UTC