- From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:55:32 -0700
- To: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Just one comment: > > ... > > Steve: Original spec implied that values like 250 could not be > > mapped into CSS model. > > John: It is a 9-point scale, forget about the actual values. Just > > need to map the font onto nine points, whatever their names. > > No, it is NOT a 9-point scale. It is a numeric system of ~1000 units. > Treating it as a 9-point scale (or as arbitrary labels) will get you > into trouble. The font-weight property *as currently specified in CSS* is a 9-point scale with arbitrary, ordered labels, that happen to have the form of numbers. Quoting http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/fonts.html#font-boldness -- 'font-weight' value: normal | bold | bolder | lighter | 100 | 200 | 300 | 400 | 500 | 600 | 700 | 800 | 900 | inherit If it were a numeric system it would be value: normal | bold | bolder | lighter | inherit | <integer> Now if what you are saying is that in order to handle all currently- existing fonts, the spec needs to be changed to allow any integer in the 0 ... 999 range, then OK, make that proposal. But that is not the way it is now, and I for one would want to see an example of a font with more than nine weights in order to be convinced that a simple mapping from this 9-point scale to whatever the values are in the actual font would not suffice. I'm skeptical about this because the text at http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/os2.htm#wtc leads me to believe that there are exactly nine possible values for usWeightClass in a valid OpenType font. (Would you be happier if the spec were changed to use the names 'thin', 'extra-light', ... 'black' from that list, instead?) zw
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 19:56:13 UTC