- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 04:28:25 +0200
- To: "Ernest Cline" <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, 9:06:37 PM, Ernest wrote: EC> Right now, the standard calls for determining whether a given piece of EC> text can be rendered in a given font on a per character basis. This is EC> a reasonable default behavior, but there are times when another EC> behavior might be desired. EC> The following example is very contrived so that I only have to write EC> one character reference in my example, but suppose that we have the EC> following HTML fragment: EC> <q>Come on, Tonto.<br>Hi‐ho, Silver!<br>Away‼</q> EC> where the calculated style rule for font-family is: EC> HexCalc, FancyCap, LatinaUno, Unicodia EC> Now suppose HexCalc only contains glyphs for 0-9, a-f, and A-F, EC> Fancy Cap contains A-Z and various punctiation characters including EC> ' ', '.', '!', '-', '!!', and the quote marks, EC> LatinaUno has glyphs only for the Latin1 character set, EC> and Unicodia has glyphs for everything in Unicode 3.2. EC> The current rules call for different parts of the text to be rendered EC> in three different fonts despite the presence of a fourth font that EC> could display all of the characters. Yes, because that is exactly what the stylesheet designer asked for. If they wanted it the other way round then Unicodia by itself would have sufficed. The most common use case is placing a font that has nice latin glyphs ahead of one that has good and complete kanji glyphs but whose latin glyphs suck. Use of the unicode coverage descriptor can fine tune this behavior. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 22:28:33 UTC