Re: @font-feature-values rule syntax

I'm getting concerned that this is too complex and unintuitive. I've remarked before that this is something for "type nerds", so the intended audience can withstand some complexity -- but still, I continue to find the syntax daunting (and I am a type nerd). I have to stare at the code and recall everything every time I see it.

One thing that throws me is the order of the various tokens, e.g.

  font-variant: name index; /* e.g. swash: swishy 1 */

My brain wants it to be:

  name: font-variant index; /* e.g. swishy: swash 1 */

In my head, I think, "The <name> is <feature>'s <index 1>".

In fact, I am also desperately trying to think of a way to simplify the syntax overall. What if the @rules were used to define feature names and their font associations, rather than feature associations for a single font? For example:

@font-feature swishy {
   font-variant: swash;
   font-index: MyriadPro 1, MinionPro 3;
}
@font-feature alt-g {
   font-variant: stylistic;
   font-index: MyriadPro 2, MinionPro 1;
}

This "reads" better for me; it says something like, "Define this <name>. It's this kind of <feature>, and it's found in each <font>'s feature <index>."

Forgive me, I'm thinking out loud and using hastily-formed syntax just to get my point across.

-Christopher


On Nov 14, 2010, at 4:49 PM, John Daggett wrote:

> During the CSS WG discussion at TPAC [1], the topic of the syntax of
> the @font-feature-values rule [2] was discussed (see original proposal
> here [3]). This rule has been proposed as a way to deal with the
> problem of font-specific numbers used in conjuction with some values
> of font-variant (e.g. styleset, swash).
> 
> A example showing various aspects of the existing proposed syntax:
> 
>  @font-feature-values Jupiter Sans {
>    swash: swishy 1, flowing 2;
>    stylistic: long-k 2;
>    styleset: alt-g 1, alt-m 3;
>    styleset: curly-quotes 5, code-forms 4 7 9;  /* additional values */
>  }
> 
>  body { font-family: Jupiter Sans, GreatJapaneseFont, sans-serif; }
>  h2 { font-variant-alternates: styleset(alt-m, curly-quotes); }
>  h2:first-letter { font-variant-alternates: swash(flowing); }
> 
>  code { font-variant-alternates: styleset(code-forms); }
>  p { font-family: Another Lovely Font; }
> 
> Here the @font-feature-values rule defines values for font-specific
> alternates of a single font.  When fallback occurs those values are
> ignored unless the same value name has also been defined for the
> fallback fonts.
> 
> One point that was made during the F2F discussion was that the
> additive way these value definitions worked was different from the way
> normal CSS style rules function:
> 
>  p {
>    color: red;
>    color: blue; /* overrides the property set above */
>  }
> 
> Two alternative syntax proposals were made to work around this.
> 
> Proposal 1: use curly braces to define scopes for specific value definitions:
> 
> @font-feature-values Jupiter Sans {
>  swash {
>    swishy: 1;
>    flowing: 2;
>  }
>  stylistic {
>    long-k: 2;
>  }
>  styleset {
>    alt-g: 1;
>    alt-m: 3;
>    curly-quotes: 5;
>    code-forms: 4 7 9;
>  }
> }
> 
> Proposal 2: use @-marks next to font-specific value names rather than a colon:
> 
>  @font-feature-values Jupiter Sans {
>    @swash swishy 1;
>    @swash flowing 2;
>    @stylistic long-k 2;
>    @styleset alt-g 1;
>    @styleset alt-m 3;
>    @styleset curly-quotes 5;
>    @styleset code-forms 4 7 9;
>  }
> 
> The first proposal is somewhat verbose but it does remove some of the
> confusion of the initial proposed syntax.  The @-syntax makes the
> notation more compact but it feels a little bit like assembler macros.
> 
> Questions/comments?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John Daggett
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-CSS-minutes.html#item03
> 
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/csswg/css3-fonts/Fonts.html?rev=1.37&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#font-feature-values
> 
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0473.html
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 07:57:22 UTC