Re: Advanced font features and related text features in CSS levels 3 and 4 [css3-fonts] [CSS3 Text] [css3-text-layout] [css4-fonts] [css4-text] [css4-text-layout]

Håkon Wium Lie wrote (in 

> In [1] I proposed:
>    font-variant-caps: normal | small-caps          /* '-' added */
>    font-variant-digits: normal | oldstyle | lining
>    font-variant-width: normal | proportional
>    font-variant-swash: normal | swash
>    font-variant-ligatures: normal | standard | alternate
> It seems that our [approaches are] similar, although I [believe] that using
> 'font-variant' as a shorthand property is beneficial.

I have no objection to using 'font-variant' as a shorthand, but, given 
that we can extend the 'font' shorthand, I don’t find a compelling 
benefit in using 'font-variant' as a shorthand. In any case, I do feel 
strongly that naming the new font properties with the prefix 
“font-variant-” instead of “font-” is wrong because such naming serves 
only to lengthen the names and not to clarify.

> This is all about variants, no?

Yes, this is all about variants, but so, too, are the properties that 
deal with font posture ('font-style'), font weight ('font-weight'), 
font density ('font-stretch'), and font size ('font-size'). You could 
also truthfully say that this is all about styles. The truth of that 
statement doesn’t recommend that we use “font-style-” as a prefix for 
the font properties. If your stance is that the names of shorthands 
should be the prefixes for their respective constituent properties, then 
I disagree with you. We already have the example of the 'font' 
shorthand, of which the 'line-height' property is a constituent.

Please do not reply to me when replying to www-style. I follow this 
thread on www-style and do not want duplicate messages.

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 03:00:08 UTC