- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:18:25 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/24/2010 08:37 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: > On March 24, 2010 5:36 AM John Daggett wrote: >> >> John Hudson wrote: >> >>> On the subject of terminology in >>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#font-variant-numeric-prop >>> >>> I find the use of the term 'font rendering' in this document >>> unfortunate, and would like to request that it be changed. For font >>> developers -- who spend a lot of time these days talking about what >>> happens to text on screen -- rendering refers to glyph painting >>> (typically some form of rasterisation). Hence, we talk about e.g. >>> different kinds of rendering engines and models, Apple Quartz >> rendering >>> vs. Microsoft ClearType rendering, hinting for different rendering >>> environments, etc. >>> >>> The kind of glyph substitution and positioning behaviours and >> properties >>> described in the draft document are what we would call text layout, >> not >>> font rendering. >> >> Yeah, I struggled over what term to use here, "font rendering" was by >> no means the ideal term. >> >> What I've called "font rendering properties" are properties not used >> for selecting a face within a family but instead properties applied >> when picking glyphs to display. "Font feature properties" is probably >> what I should use instead. >> > > Would the generic term "glyph substitution" work (instead of font > rendering) to describe the effect of font features and the font-variant > properties? Depending on the context, you might go with "glyph selection" rather than "glyph substitution". Substitution implies that you've got some default that you're substituting for. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 17:18:57 UTC