- From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:12:15 -0400
- To: W3C CSS specification-development discussion <www-style@w3.org>
Håkon Wium Lie wrote (in
<http://www.w3.org/mid/18510.35517.739848.739689@opera.com>):
> 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