- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:58:51 +0200
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Alan Stearns: > > text-justify: auto none inter-word inter-ideograph inter-cluster distribute kashida > > word-spacing: 2 new values describing minimum maximum spacing > > letter-spacing: 2 new values describing minimum maximum spacing > > > > However, microtypography is not mentioned. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtypography > I would expect that if we decided to support glyph scaling in CSS there > would be a new property alongside word-spacing and letter-spacing that would > allow minimum, maximum and optimum glyph scale values. There would not need > to be any changes to the currently-proposed properties to accommodate this > new control. Does that answer the "compatibility" question you're asking, or > is there something else? I think this new property could work well with 'word-spacing' and 'letter-spacing'. I'm less sure about 'text-justify' -- it seems that it provides conflicting instructions on how to justify. For example, these are conflicting: word-spacing: 0 0 0; text-justify: inter-word; What would be a good name for at new property for glyph scaling? Glyph-scaling, perhaps? > I consider the methods outlined in the wikipedia article to be finetuning > controls one can use only *after* the basics (hyphenation, word and > letterspacing) are dialed in. The article misquotes Robert Bringhurst, > inflating his assessment of the importance of glyph scaling in good > justification. The currentlyproposed controls in the draft are the most > important, so for me the question is how far down the list of possible > justification controls do we want to go at this time? What knobs do you offer in InDesign? Cheers, -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 20:59:37 UTC