- From: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:03:33 -0500
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Apr 4, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:10 AM, John Hudson wrote: > >>>> text-elevation >> >>> I counter with: >>> text-relation >> >> relative-script >> or >> reduced-script > > To me, 'glyph-position' is meaningful (so is 'text-elevation', even > if it was meant as a joke). The others, not so much. > > When I see 'script-style', I think first of JavaSCRIPT and cascading > STYLE sheets. Sure you can use JavaScript to style your elements, > but <rhetorical>what does that have to do with these reduced-sized > and vertically-moved versions of the characters?</rhetorical> The title of the section is "Positional character forms" -- so perhaps 'character-position'. 'glyph-position' is probably better. Can we add font-weight to the list of affected properties? A superscript / subscript is often made slightly heavier to make it pleasing to the eye. Perry
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 19:04:08 UTC