- From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 19:44:28 -0400
- To: "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>, "'Brad Kemper'" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: "'John Daggett'" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Sunday, April 04, 2010 4:14 PM <tiro@tiro.com>: >The target audience for advanced typographic features in CSS is presumably >people who know something about typography, so presenting information in >terminology that is familiar to those people is probably a good idea. John, Every web designer/developer on earth is a typographer. That's just the fact of it. And their number is in the millions. It might not be typography as you practice it, or grew up with it, or even as you would like it to be, but it is typography. And until a feature exists, those millions can't use it. But when it's available, they will notice it, they will understand it, and they will make good use of it. My wife is a nurse-educator who will be getting her master's degree the end of this month. She makes a lot of PowerPoint presentations. Choice of font, font sizes, bullets, paragraph widths - these are all typographic decisions are they not? She makes them. We all do. To paraphrase advertising giant David Ogilvy: The typographer is not an idiot, she is my wife. How many people are you talking about that you presume "know something about typography" and whose existing taxonomy and nomenclature should taken into account? (Because I'm not saying it shouldn't.) Because if these are the folks that should be catered to, their number is a legitimate question. And how many of them actively design for the web? And how can they design for the web if they don't learn CSS? And if they learn CSS, how is it that the terminology - as long as it is in keeping with CSS as it has evolved - be cryptic to them? See the problem with what you're suggesting? Here are the properties listed on the Microsoft Dev Network's Font and Text CSS properties page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa358817(VS.85).aspx content, counterIncrement, counterReset, direction, font, fontFamily, fontSize, fontStyle, fontVariant, fontWeight, imeMode, layoutFlow, layoutGrid, layoutGridChar, layoutGridLine, layoutGridMode, layoutGridType, letterSpacing, lineBreak, lineHeight, quotes, rubyAlign, rubyOverhang, rubyPosition, textAlign, textAlignLast, textAutospace, textDecoration, textDecorationBlink, textDecorationLineThrough, textDecorationNone, textDecorationOverline, textDecorationUnderline, textIndent, textJustify, textKashidaSpace, textOverflow, textTransform, textUnderlinePosition, unicodeBidi, verticalAlign, whitespace, wordbreak, wordSpacing, wordWrap, writingMode Now, I'd be surprised if, by the property name only, you could even map what each one of them does to an exact "typographic" term as you use it. "Tracking" is letter-spacing. "Leading" is line-height. And on and on. That's why there is this public list - to invite experts such as yourself to help do the hard work (and it is very hard) of mapping new properties being added to the language of Cascading Style Sheets to the terminology as it is currently used by the *relatively* few (let's face it) who are intimately familiar with these features today. Incidentally, my friend Harry Potter absolutely insisted that I suggest the term: text-levitate even though I told him the chances of adoption were slim to none. ;) Regards, Rich -----Original Message----- From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hudson Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 4:14 PM To: www-style@w3.org Cc: www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: Another cut on the Character-Transform Property Perry Smith wrote: > The title of the section is "Positional character forms" ... Well, I might take issue with that terminology too.:) 'Positional character forms' suggests to me something like word-positional forms or Arabic letter-group positional forms -- initial, medial, final --, i.e. forms determined by character position. A general problem of the draft, from a typographic perspective, is that the terminology is often not that used by typographers. Apart from being confusing, this leads some of my colleagues -- notably David Berlow -- to question the W3C's credibility in defining typographic features. The target audience for advanced typographic features in CSS is presumably people who know something about typography, so presenting information in terminology that is familiar to those people is probably a good idea. JH
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 23:44:55 UTC