- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
> Anyway, you're criticizing my table for providing inadequate visual > distinction, but haven't provided an example where that's the case. > Can you please provide such an example? It's not that it's inadequate but that it's inconsistent, you'll hit in-between weights in some cases but not in others. Your table: | Inherited value bolder lighter | 100 400 100 | 200 400 100 | 300 500 100 | 400 600 200 | 500 700 300 | 600 800 400 | 700 900 500 | 800 900 600 | 900 900 700 For the vast majority of fonts that only have normal/bold weights "400 bolder" would map to the bold (700) face. But in some cases, where a semi-bold (600) face existed, you'd end up with a potentially subtle difference. Likewise in the case of "700 lighter", most of the time it would hit 400 but in some cases if a family had a medium weight it would hit that (e.g. Helvetica Neue on 10.6). Including in-between weights doesn't "increase precision", it increases imprecision because the results will vary more across OS environments. Put another way "400 bolder" should always map to 700 because that's what authors who are generally fuzzy on the difference between bold and bolder expect. >> It's unfortunate that you're bringing this up now, a year after this > > It's unfortunate that I'm only now triaging the CSS2.1 issues list, yes. The wording is in the CSS3 spec and the definition of bolder/lighter is by no means a new issue. The CSS 2.1 issue is more "do we want to move the CSS3 wording into the 2.1 spec" rather than "do we want to debate bolder/lighter definition yet again" >> was discussed and agreed upon at the March 2009 F2F. > > There was no resolution on font-weight at that F2F: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0070.html There was general agreement at the time that this proposal made sense and that I should write it up as such. The record reflects that, as did the working draft updated in June of last year.
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 09:32:56 UTC