- From: Adam Twardoch (Lists) <list.adam@twardoch.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:37:12 +0200
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
text-elevation ;) On 2010-04-04, at 05:08, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote: > 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 11:37:39 UTC