W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > June 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-3] Dropping "synthesizing super/sub-scripts" requirement

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:10:35 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-398807366-1529511034-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The Working Group just discussed `Dropping "synthesizing super/sub-scripts" requirement`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: change to should in L3 and pushing for it in L4`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Dropping "synthesizing super/sub-scripts" requirement<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2796<br>
&lt;dael> chris: Let me give a DoC link<br>
&lt;chris> https://drafts.csswg.org/issues?spec=css-fonts-3&amp;doc=pr-2018<br>
&lt;dael> chris: One remaining issue. There's an advisement in the spec if you have open type font that has some...<br>
&lt;fantasai> What issue is this?<br>
&lt;dael> chris: If it has some open type features for sub scripts and super scripts but doesn't cover all glyphs the spec advises not to use and to synth them. No one does that and it's at risk in CR. As it's at risk and there's not impl interest I opened issue to downgrade to should or may.<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/issues?spec=css-fonts-3&amp;doc=pr-2018#issue-9<br>
&lt;dael> chris: There was some obj, florian not happy<br>
&lt;dael> florian: My concerns is since the glyphs supported won't line up it may be semantically confusing. None-lined up may be multi level superscript.<br>
&lt;dael> chris: THat's possible. The example was choosen to be particularly bad.<br>
&lt;dael> chris: This isn't a new issue. The advice to switch off the real superscript and sub script is well intentioned but not impl. We could defer the entire thing to L4. We didn't get consensus around changing html stylesheet<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: THis isn't the reason for html stylesheet. THat's because can't do many levels subscript<br>
&lt;dael> chris: agree<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I agree that just because this is bad we don't have an good answer. I don't want to block and if downgrade to should is what we can do that's what we have<br>
&lt;dael> chris: We have downgrade to may, should, or move to L4. I prefer should.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: We should put pressure as well as doing should.<br>
&lt;astearns> ack liam<br>
&lt;Zakim> liam, you wanted to ask how that works with content-editable when you add the first unsupported character<br>
&lt;dael> liam: I wanted to point out it's not an edge case. content editable the user adds an unsupported character. It's an edge case, but it has to work.<br>
&lt;dael> chris: Yes, it would mean previously superscript char would have to be rendered differently. But I'm not aware of anyone doing it.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I'm okay with this.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj to change to should in L3 and pushing for it in L4<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: As long as it's clear you have to synth individual super and sub script<br>
&lt;dael> chris: Yes<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: change to should in L3 and pushing for it in L4<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2796#issuecomment-398807366 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2018 16:10:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 June 2018 16:10:38 UTC