- From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 10:00:08 -0400
- To: "'Adam Twardoch \(Lists\)'" <list.adam@twardoch.com>, "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: "'Thomas Phinney'" <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, <www-style@w3.org>
Sunday, April 04, 2010 7:37 AM <list.adam@twardoch.com>: > text-elevation I counter with: text-relation Alternatives: glyph-relation or glyph-script-relation or just script-relation. I like text-relation for its simplicity. Relative positioning is something authors are quite familiar with. It takes the element out of the normal flow of the document and re-positions it relative to where it would exist in that normal flow. Is this not similar to superscript and subscript but on the level of the normal flow of a line of text? For myself, I find that text-relation - as a description of this - fits nicely into my CSS conceptual toolkit. But that's me. You? Regards, Rich -----Original Message----- From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Adam Twardoch (Lists) Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 7:37 AM To: John Hudson Cc: Thomas Phinney; www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: Another cut on the Character-Transform Property 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 14:00:36 UTC