- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 03:57:45 +0000
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-houdini@w3.org" <public-houdini@w3.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Bram Stein <stein@adobe.com>
On 2/8/15, 2:52 PM, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org> wrote: >Hello Tab, > >Sunday, February 8, 2015, 3:55:38 AM, you wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >>> The TextMetrics interface has attributes for some of these metrics in >>>CSS >>> pixel units. This makes sense for the canvas measurements being made by >>> that interface, but I’m thinking the font interface we’re designing >>>should >>> be expressed in more abstract units. One possibility is to add a >>> unitsPerEm attribute and express all the other metrics in those >>> font-specific units. That’s probably the most natural thing to do for >>> typographers. But I think it could also work to rationalize on a single >>> unitsPerEm value or use an em percentage. > >> An em percentage is fine with me. No need to indirect through some >> variable amount of units. > >I think that people with a type background are going to want to use >the units for their preferred font format (so 1000 or 2048, in >practice) and will resent having to mentally convert to em percentage >when they normally think in other units. > >So values in units, together with units-per-em (like the descriptor), >is a better method for the intended audience. This can also be >expressed as a percentage, for people who are comfortable with that. I think this depends on how the values will be used. If every use ends up being metric/unitsPerEm * actualEmInPixels Then giving the metrics in em percentage makes using the interface easier. Thanks, Alan
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2015 03:58:16 UTC