- From: Simetrical <simetrical@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:00:35 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > You're looking specifically at weight changes, and measuring the number of > defects where a weight change is expected to occur and does not. I don't > believe this is a useful metric, though. Consider this markup: > > <a> > Text A > <b style="font-weight: bolder;"> > Text B > <c style="font-weight: bolder;"> > Text C > </c> > Text D > </b> > </a> > > In an ideal world, Text C would be extra-bold. If your font does not have > an extra-bold weight, though, C will be merely bold. This is completely > uncontroversial, and clear from both spec and common sense. However, > according to your metric this example has two defects as well, as Text C > should be darker than Text B (it isn't) and Text D should be lighter than > Text C (it isn't). Would your conclusion, then, be to lighten Text D? A reasonable counterpoint. > Simple real-world example - nested <strong> tags, for extra-special > importance. Yes, but when would you nest two <strong> tags in each other and *then* have a font-weight: lighter inside? What would be a snippet of HTML that does that and isn't obviously contrived?
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 00:01:15 UTC