W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

Re: [css3-font] Extension of font-stretch property

From: MasaFuji <masa@fuji.email.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:21:36 +0900
Message-ID: <1F744EF78DB140DABA8737D873A51CC5@DHKRXC1X>
To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>, "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Thank you for good advice. I will  make a shift to the new property named as 
Would you give me permission to add the new property in this css-fonts 
section? Or other?

Masahiro Fujishima

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
To: "MasaFuji" <masa@fuji.email.ne.jp>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>; "Thomas Phinney" 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [css3-font] Extension of font-stretch property

> Masahiro Fujishima wrote:
>> I have an understanding of typographical fear of risks. But for CJK
>> fonts, it is very useful and economical tactic to use
>> expanding/condensing method. As you know, CJK font has more than 3,000
>> or 5,000 characters in it. It is impossible to prepare ideal series of
>> font-width in a font family.
> There was a discussion along the same lines back in August 2010:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0267.html
> The one key point to me is that "effects" like this should be clearly
> separated out from the font selection process.  So 'font-stretch' should
> control *selection* and a separate property (e.g. 'font-xscale') should
> control artificially synthesized condensed/expanded.  Bolding works
> automagically but that's an unfortunate feature left over for
> compatibility reasons.
> Note that you can already use CSS transforms to achieve the same effect:
>  http://people.mozilla.org/~jdaggett/tests/xtransform.html
> Using transforms for this is somewhat clumsy but possible nevertheless.
> Note that for body text sizes, using fake condensed/expanded glyphs
> isn't going to work in an ideal way in most implementations, since to
> really be correct the font rasterizer needs to be involved, it needs to
> do the stretched/shrunk rasterization; just applying a simple image
> transform on a normally rasterized glyph will produce incorrect subpixel
> antialiasing.  Not such a big deal for display sizes but definitely not
> ideal for text sizes, especially in the case of high information density
> glyphs characteristic of CJK fonts.
> So my thought would be to consider a separate property in the future but
> not for inclusion in CSS3 Fonts.
> John Daggett
> Mozilla Japan
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 03:38:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:54 UTC