W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2010

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-03-17

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:23:34 -0700
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1003231323k1c1ccf6do62709189c2ec6237@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:52 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> wrote:
>> For your example here, all you need to do is write this instead:
>>  sup {
>>   vertical-align: -.4em;
>>   font-size: .8em;
>>  }
> My point is that this assumes that vertical-align us the only way people
> will want to deal with the fallback for SUP, and that assumption is
> erroneous, and will cause confusion for those using a different way.

That is, however, the "official" way to do it.  As well, if you're
providing a font with the correct super/subscript characters already,
you should hopefully be reasonable sure that the font will display, so
that it will only *not* show up in a network-error fallback solution,
where exact appearance is less important, so you don't need to employ
special just-so rules to get the rendering how you want.

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 20:24:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:44 UTC