Re: For review: Font styles & font fallback

Hello Richard,

Just a few comments of the top of my head:

- You discuss the need for choosing a Japanese (as opposed to a Chinese) 
font for Kanji/Hanji in the Japanese section, but it should also be 
mentioned in the Chinese section, and traditional fonts should also be 
mentioned because there are also cases where the same code point looks 
different for Japanese vs. traditional, or simplified vs. traditional, 
or all three (and then there's Korean, but I agree that these days, 
Korean Hanja aren't that relevant anymore for day to day use).

- "In a monoline font strokes are generally the same width...": better 
add a comma after 'font' for readability.

- For Japanese, you say "For fallback on the Web, these styles are 
usually equated with serif and sans-serif, respectively, although serifs 
are not actually involved". Actually, Mincho-style fonts have something 
very close to serifs, namely the little upward pointing triangles at the 
right end of horizontal strokes. These are called uroko (うろこ, scales 
(e.g. of a fish)), and are quite similar in shape as well as visual 
function to serifs.

- I would also shortly mention font styles in Latin (and 
Cyrillic/Greek?), even if just to say that you assume that the reader is 
familiar with these.

- In the Tamil section, it's unclear whether the pairs in Fig. 26 
(Proposed reforms of 1978) are expressed using different code points, or 
they are a result of using different fonts. It could make sense to say 
which explicitly (or it could make sense to say more explicitly at the 
start of the article that this applies to all examples, if it indeed does).

Regards,   Martin.

On 2022-10-11 23:20, r12a wrote:
> In case someone acted on this quickly, note that i just added a section 
> on Japanese and a summary at the end of the article.
> 
> ri
> 
> 
> 
> r12a wrote on 11/10/2022 13:44:
>> Font styles & font fallback
>> https://w3c.github.io/i18n-drafts/articles/typography/fontstyles.en.html
>>
>>
>> A first draft of the above document is available for internal review. 
>> Please take a read and advise if you have comments by raising GitHub 
>> issues.  Thanks.
>>
>> ri
>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 17 October 2022 09:15:40 UTC