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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:49:49 -0700
Message-Id: <0D3075CA-587E-4CFD-A47B-1CA03F61A96B@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@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 Mar 23, 2010, at 1:23 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  

> 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.

Number one, I don't think that will be obvious to everyone who wants  
to use this feature, and number two, it is limiting to those who might  
have good reason to handle the positioning in a different way.

> 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.

I hardly think of this as limited in usefullness to downloaded fonts,  
especially in the future. 
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 21:50:39 UTC

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