- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:28:57 -0700
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
John Daggett wrote: > So simulated glyphs would be used in the fallback case, either when > the feature was missing from the font or when it was missing for a > given glyph. I realize this is far from ideal, a mixture of > real substitute glyphs and fake substitutes could occur, but I think it's > better than just using default glyphs. Is the method of simulation specified or recommended? In theory, there is font info that can be used to define best scaling and positioning for simulated superscript and subscript; in practice, in a lot of fonts (the majority?), this information is not accurately set. It's one of those vicious circles in which app makers ignore the data, discouraging font makers from taking the time to calculate best values, which in turn discourages app makers from making use of them. John Hudson
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 03:29:32 UTC