- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:15:31 -0700
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- CC: CSS WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Hi Koji, I don't think adding this to "unicode-range" makes sense. The 'unicode-range' selector is one specific, effective mechanism for one specific use--selecting font based on a range of Unicode code points. If we want to provide for selection according various Unicode properties, we should provide a property selector. Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect (Lab126) Chair (W3C I18N WG) Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-i18n-cjk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-cjk-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Koji Ishii > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 4:35 AM > To: John Daggett; Christoph Päper > Cc: CSS WWW Style; CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org) > Subject: RE: [css3-fonts] humane 'unicode-range' > > This is in reply to a little old thread as this was marked as an issue in the > spec[1]. > > One use case that came up in my mind is to switch fonts for UAX #11 [2] > EAW=A code points. > > EAW=A contains mostly punctuation and symbols that were unified. I think > there are cases where authors want: > * CJK fonts for EAW=A|F|H|W > * Latin fonts for EAW=N|Na > > One famous example for EAW=A is U+2026 HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS; ellipsis are > at baseline in Latin fonts while ellipsis at the vertical center in CJK fonts. If I > were writing Japanese documents, I expect it be drawn at the vertical center. > > It would be great if I can use a font like this: > > @font-resource { > font-family: myfont; > src: local(CJK-font-name); > } > > @font-resource { > font-family: myfont; > src: local(Latin-font-name); > unicode-range: EAW=N|Na; > } > > Or to do this in opposite way: > > @font-resource { > font-family: myfont; > src: local(Latin-font-name); > } > > @font-resource { > font-family: myfont; > src: local(CJK-font-name); > unicode-range: EAW=A|F|H|W, U+5C; > } > > Thoughts? > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#unicode-range-desc > [2] http://unicode.org/reports/tr11/ > > > Regards, > Koji > > -----Original Message----- > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of John Daggett > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:06 PM > To: Christoph Päper > Cc: CSS WWW Style > Subject: Re: [css3-fonts] humane 'unicode-range' > > > > Christoph Päper wrote: > > > Would it make sense to add keywords to ‘unicode-range’ or to add > > another font-decriptor with similar purpose to identify scripts or > > writing systems (i.e. script + language) supported by (and requested > > to be used from) the font resource? > > There was a discussion of this last year: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0212.html > > I think it boiled down to whether to use names from the Unicode database or > not and if so, how specific the names should be. I think the idea of named > ranges for the 'unicode-range' descriptor is interesting. > I don't like the idea of additional descriptors for this (e.g. script-coverage, etc.). > > It would help to have a clearer idea of the use case you imagine for this to be > able to judge whether named ranges are better than simple ranges. > > One other use I can imagine is for easily dividing up large CJK fonts into defined > character ranges. > > Ex: > > unicode-range: jis-level-1, jis-level-2; /* alias for the set of codepoints in the > JIS Level 1 and 2 ranges */ > > JIS Level 1 characters occur more commonly than JIS Level 2, etc., so this would > be a convenient way for font vendors to package fonts so that fonts containing > infrequently used characters were only downloaded in fallback situations. > > No matter what the set of aliases, I think we can only practically reference > ranges that are defined clearly and have a standard reference point such as the > Unicode database. > > Cheers, > > John Daggett
Received on Sunday, 1 May 2011 18:16:02 UTC