- From: Nat McCully via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 05:34:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> How about sending this issue to OpenType, so that they can improve the definition? > > Given existing fonts are incompatible today, they can improve the definition so that future fonts being more compatible. They could also define features that can make both types of fonts happy, and CSS can define a property to control the features. > > With the current shaping engine APIs, it's not easy for browsers to apply features only if glyphs are fullwidth. Resolving this issue by the cooperation with OpenType and shaping engines can also ensure browsers match the native applications. > > /cc @litherum @jfkthame I am not aware of font incompatibilities -- when the font has 'kern' values set on fullwidth glyphs, they must necessarily start from the 'palt' widths, otherwise they would have too many pairs and not achieve proportional typography, which is the point of kerning. As far as when to apply proportional features, this is kind of the legacy of CJK fonts mixing proportional Latin with monospaced CJK in one font by default, but offering non-default widths and kerning as an option. Not sure a new OTF feature would solve this differently... -- GitHub Notification of comment by macnmm Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6723#issuecomment-1422041898 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2023 05:34:16 UTC