- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:11:49 -0800
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
If the font file itself contains information about optical sizes to use, such as with multiple-master fonts, then ideally the UA would use the right optical size based on the used font-size, right? On Mar 4, 2009, at 12:45 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: >>>> Or the lack of font properties to sufficiently delineate full font >>>> families? >>> >>> That's also a problem. The notion of properties only goes so far: in >>> the real world, some members of font families are distinguished by >>> arbitrary design variations that don't necessarily match the simple >>> weight/width/slope model. Optical size is the obvious and most >>> common one, and could be done as a property, but there are plenty of >>> simply arbitrary differences that are not amenable to a "property" >>> approach, and are best dealt with as an additional string. >> >> That being said, weight/width/slope handles maybe 95% of the fonts >> out >> there, and is a great advance over just bold and italic. > > Optical size as a separate axis of variation is interesting. I know > Adobe ships with font families that include optical size variations > but > is this commonly used by other font vendors? > >>> It would be helpful to hear solutions you think might solve this >>> "fundamentally broken" model. >> >> Two things need to be done: >> >> - clearly define what version of "family" name should be used >> >> - define appropriate means to disambiguate fonts which are not >> distinguished by weight/width/slope alone. Perhaps add a property for >> optical size, and the ability to specify an arbitrary string for part >> of the name. > > Interesting, so the arbitrary string would map to what exactly? > You're > thinking of something WPF-ish where you try and match this against > some > part of the style name? Style name localizations are a big headache > here. If only there were named variation axes... ;) > > Regards, > > John >
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 00:12:36 UTC