- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:33:05 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote: > > The algorithm [1] for converting a character width to pixels is good > indeed, except that it should be formulated in terms of glyphs and not > characters because stand-alone characters are not displayed or perceived > as such for some scripts. As far as I can tell, "character width" is an adequate term here. I don't want to sacrifice readability for pedantism when it's not necessary. > If the primary font for which the algorithm is being run comprises > several scripts, as it typically does, characters of the script of the > effective language of the control should take overwhelming weight in the > average. As far as I can tell from testing other browsers, this is not the case. > This algorithm does not fulfill the requirements for the size attribute > formulated in section 4.10.4.2.4 [2]: when it is applied, it may happen > that the user agent will not be able to allow the user to see the whole > text it should be able to allow. The requirement should be modified to > match the effect of the algorithm. The text in 4.10.4.2.4 doesn't contain a requirement as far as I can tell. It's just non-normative text for authors. As such it seems better to be simple than precise. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 11:33:05 UTC