- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:54:18 -0800
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTimK6v-0Z7+DoMpikvXi2RzCN02WyAJxXaq+JZvW@mail.gmail.com>
I don't actually see any need to separate swash and contextual swash, as far as UI switches. I have never missed the lack of separate switches in the apps I have been using this in. In the "additional ligatures" example, what is shown as discretionary is actually a perfect example of historical. I'm not denying that it was set that way in the font, just saying that is a poor choice (by the font vendor as well). John Daggest can feel free to contact me off-list so I can suggest a better example from what you have on hand (or make one for you). I also have some comments on Christoph's comments.... On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de > wrote: > Thanks for incorporating some of my earlier notes and suggestions. > > John Daggett: > > * Section 6.4 subscript, superscript, ordinal description > > This actually might work. > > * Section 6.5 Ligatures > > “nums” matches “caps”, so why not “ligs”? :) > > People will probably want to use > > font-variant-ligatures: none; > > and > > font-variant-ligatures: all; > > For defaults specified by the font ‘auto’ seems more natural than ‘normal’, > but the latter is usually used for shorthand resets. > I agree on the above, for the most part. > I have said before < > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0049.html> that I > don’t think the current design of this feature is sound and we should rather > use something user-friendly like > > font-variant-ligatures: all | additional | common | none | auto/normal > > and leave users with special needs with ‘font-feature-setting’. > I prefer it as currently stated, as discretionary ("additional") vs historical are independent items and not hierarchical. > You would, at first glance, need something more verbose to make > ‘font-variant’ being a shorthand possible (6.11), at least if you wanted to > be able to set everything within the shorthand. At second thought, > ligatures, capitals and digits don’t share keywords, even if you leave out > “-ligatures”, “-caps” and “-nums”. > > * Section 6.6 Capitalization > > I have outlined my concerns earlier. This time I only want to suggest a > change from > > | <caps-value> = small-caps | all-small-caps | petite-caps | > all-petite-caps > | | titling-caps | unicase > > to > > <caps-value> = all? [ small-caps | petite-caps | titling-caps ] > | unicase > > If ‘all’ is specified with ‘small-caps’ or ‘petite-caps’, OT feature > ‘c2sc’/‘c2pc’ is applied and if that is impossible, as a fallback, > ‘text-transform’ is set to ‘lowercase’. > If ‘all’ is specified with ‘titling-caps’, ‘text-transform’ is set to > ‘uppercase’ (since there is no corresponding OT feature). > > If ‘text-transform’ is set to ‘uppercase’, ‘font-variant-caps’ is reset in > a way that the OT feature ‘titl’ becomes activated. > > * Section 6.7 Numerical formatting > > I also still believe ‘font-variant-caps’ and ‘text-transform’ should > interact with ‘font-variant-numeric’, i.e. <numeric-figure-values>: > If ‘text-transform’ is set to ‘uppercase’ (directly or indirectly), > ‘font-variant-numeric’ is reset in a way that the OT feature ‘lnum’ becomes > activated. > If ‘text-transform’ is set to ‘lowercase’ (directly or indirectly), > ‘font-variant-numeric’ is reset in a way that the OT feature ‘onum’ becomes > activated. > > And I still believe the value names are not well chosen, and neither are > they in Open Type: > > “lining” (+lnum, -onum) > “casing” (+onum, -lnum) > “proportional” (+pnum, -tnum) > “monospaced” (+tnum, -pnum) > > “oldstyle” (+onum, +pnum) > “tabular” (+tnum, +lnum) > … > Where are you getting that mapping of feature combinations to labels? I do not recall any such thing from OpenType, and it isn't in the CSS 3 fonts spec... I'm sure I'm missing something here. The definition of "oldstyle" seems odd in requiring proportional.... Cheers, T -- “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” —H.L. Mencken
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 22:54:50 UTC