- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:13:32 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > I agree that cap height is really what's wanted for all three of your use > cases. If "cap height" is too technical a term for the use cases, could we > use "height of a capital letter?" That's fine for use-case #1 (in fact, that's *precisely* what you want). For use-case #2 and #3, you really want something related to the vertical rhythm of the script, but the height of a capital letter is a good proxy for that. >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote: >>> In a Middle Eastern context (i.e. unicameral "alphabets" - Arabic, Armenian, >>> Coptic/Ethiopic, and Hebrew) I would suggest using the figure height - >>> although there's a risk that figures in many fonts for these systems will >>> not be well fitted to the design. >> >> Can you point to a diagram or something similar showing the >> differences between figure and cap height for such scripts? I don't >> have a good graph on why one is better than the other for these types >> of scripts. > > If it's true that figure height would be better in some scripts for these > use cases, then that's an argument for exposing a figure height unit in > addition to cap height. The way I'm looking at a cap height unit is that > it's just the next step in exposing more typographic units. We've got em, ex > and ch and are now thinking of adding cap height. Later on we may find use > cases for other information we can glean from font data. No argument from me here. I just don't understand why figure height would solve the use-cases better than cap height for those types of scripts, as stated in the feedback that Steve passed on. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 20:14:27 UTC