- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 20:08:20 -0700
- To: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Thomas Phinney wrote: > Steve's proposal seems sound. But I don't think his names are much > better than the original: those names tell me even less about what the > feature might do, and like the original name could apply to any feature. > Maybe "glyph-position" or perhaps "text-position"? When working on math typesetting fonts, we discovered that the term 'script-style' was fairly common to refer to superscript and subscript glyphs. My only concern with recommending it in this instance, is that the term 'script' is already overloaded, but it still strikes me as more precise than 'character-transform' or 'glyph-position', which could mean anything and everything. John Hudson
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 03:08:55 UTC