- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:59:05 -0800
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:17 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 9:12 , Thomas Phinney wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >>> I assume that saying that variants apply to all the fonts that can support them or have them, does not work? >>> >>> i.e. if SomePlatformFont also supports the variant, then use it, otherwise ignore the request. >>> >>> Are the variants that specific to the fonts? >> >> For some kinds of variants, they are. For example, OpenType "stylistic >> sets" (ssXX) and stylistic alternates (salt) are both pretty >> arbitrary, unknown (from a programmatic POV) variants — they're >> "font-specific." Obviously things like standard ligatures, small caps, >> oldstyle figures and superscripts are pretty reliable across-fonts: >> "font-agnostic." >> >> I'm not that excited about option #4, as it makes it harder to use >> font-specific formatting with platform fonts. >> >> For known features, one can pretty easily categorize them (or almost >> all) as font-specific or font-agnostic. >> >> Cheers, >> >> T > So, option #5 might be "The requested variant applies to every font in the list, if it exists, otherwise it is ignored." > ? If option #5 specifically only applied to font-agnostic features (or specifically disregarded font-specific features), that would be pretty cool. That would leave the problem of how to deal with the unknown features... probably treat them as font-specific. I forget what it was called, but there was a catch-all feature proposed that allowed one to use any arbitrary OpenType feature, on top of the ones that CSS actively "knows about." Regards, T -- "The rat's perturbed; it must sense nanobots! Code grey! We have a Helvetica scenario!" — http://xkcd.com/683/
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 18:59:38 UTC