Re: [css3-fonts] subscript/superscript variants

On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 05:02 -0700, John Daggett wrote:

> Er, yeah, but that would hit the fallback case fairly quickly unless
> your document consisted of only a very long number.  Not sure I see
> why this even close to a realistic use case.

I didn't say it was realistic, I was asking so as to understand what was
meant by "all characters" - thank you for answering.

The tradeoff seems to be between mixing "native" superscript/subscipt
glyphs and generated ones (ugly) or using native ones in some parts of
the documents and generated ones in others (potentially confusing as the
difference may be large enough as to appear intended).

I'd rather have the ugly than the confusing.

>   And I'm not sure how
> small caps relates since support for small caps is defined differently.

I don't see a good justification for doing small caps differently in
this regard, though. It's again something where you want the native
small caps where available.


Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C,
Pictures from old books:

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 13:14:26 UTC