Re: bolder/lighter defintion from John Daggett on 2010-03-24 (www-style@w3.org from March 2010)

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <1196178416.21685.1269402098383.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>

>> No, you've missed how bolder/lighter works, the inherited weight is
>> first mapped to an existing weight and *then* bolder/lighter is
>> applied.
> 
> I thought the point of your proposal was that you were making this no
> longer be the case (which I like).

The table of values is based on how the *existing* behavior of
bolder/lighter would work for a family with 100/400/700/900 weights. 
For that family '300 bolder lighter' would be a roundtrip using either
the old definition or the new one.

After the change, bolder/lighter would be a simple mapping independent
of a given family.

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 03:42:12 UTC