- From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:51:44 -0400
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On 09/28/10 01:00, John Daggett wrote: > Things like this need to be captured somewhere in a spec. If OpenType > doesn't define default behavior explicitly in these cases, it needs to > be defined explicitly somewhere. I think in general the rule should > be that if a given feature is specified and a given font doesn't > support it, the glyph used should be the same one used if the feature > was not specified explicitly (i.e. whatever the OpenType engine > defaults would be). Having undefined per-feature defaults defined at > an engine level is a recipe for incompatibility across user agents. Agreed. The OpenType spec leaves it to the application to choose which alternative to choose. The actual alternate numbers are implementation details from the OT point of view since I think it was designed originally with only GUI apps in mind, not XML / CSS. behdad > John Daggett
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 18:47:58 UTC