Re: bolder/lighter defintion

On 03/23/2010 08:24 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2010-03-23 16:23 -0700, fantasai wrote:
>> The problem with this proposal is that it doesn't roundtrip very well.
>> If I start at 300 and go bolder, then lighter, I don't get back to my
>
> Is there a use case for that?  Is lighter inside bolder something we
> expect to be common?  In what cases?  Do they rely on this
> invariant?

I don't have any expectations of whether it would be common or uncommon,
but I find it disturbing that round-tripping would not work for so many
starting values and that in a font with 9 weights as soon as you start
using 'bolder' or 'lighter' you drop out half the possible weights.
If there's no good reason to break this, I don't think we should.

The table I came up with has equivalent behavior to John's for a
100,400,700,900 font. Assuming you're mapping to the font tables after
calculating the computed value (which is what I thought we'd agreed on),
I don't see why we need to lose precision here for fonts with a greater
range of weights.

~fantasai