- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Adam Twardoch (List)" <list.adam@twardoch.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
Adam Twardoch wrote: > It is known that WebKit tries to render text fast by disabling > kerning and some other features by default. I can sympathize with > that. After all, they do have their text-rendering: > optimizeLegibility property. I would, however, expect that with that > setting, WebKit should apply all the default features (for standard > scripts: ccmp, locl, mark, mkmk, liga, kern, perhaps also rlig, clig > and calt). If it does not, I'd consider this a bug. This is precisely the problem, the model where kerning and ligatures are off by default effectively creates a two-mode environment for text rendering, a default "plain text" mode and a "typographic mode" with no clear boundary between the two and no real advantage to users. This is in effect letting the details of implementation dictate the authoring model. The result is that a seemingly unrelated property setting (e.g. font-feature-settings: "blah" on;) suddenly enables other changes (e.g. ligatures, language-specific features) because, unbeknown to the author, that change caused an implicit mode switch. What causes a mode switch? Setting a non-default value of font-feature-settings? Using a script that requires shaping (e.g. Arabic, Devanagari, Thai)? Explicitly enabling kerning? The use of vertical text runs that require vertical alternates? One of the underlying differences in text performance is not the actual time needed to deal with kerning data for example, but the fact that the "plain text" code uses a very simple API call that's been tuned and the "typographic mode" code uses a catch-all API that handles *all* complex text and hasn't been tuned nearly as much. The bottom line in the kerning case is that once you're pulling glyphs and advances from font data, also pulling the kerning pairs is a very small delta on top of that. There's a bit of a catch-22 situation here, since the complex text path is used infrequently there's much less incentive to optimize it. It also ends up generally having more bugs, because certain features are tested with the "plain text" path and not the complex text path (see [1] for an example). > Alternatively, I'd recommend an additional value for > font-feature-settings: default -- this would work differently from > normal. The value normal should leave all the decisions to the > browser whether to apply any features at all. The value default > would apply all the default features, which should perhaps be > enumerated by the spec. > > So the value default would be more restrictive: it would say "do > apply features, whatever they might be". The value normal would just > say "it's up to you whether to apply any features or none at all". What you're describing here is the 'auto' value. To allow for two-mode behavior you'd need to make 'auto' the default value for all properties that affect default feature settings: font-kerning font-variant-ligatures font-variant font-feature-settings When 'auto' is set for *all* of these, a user agent specific mode (with unspecified defaults) would be used. Any use of a value other than 'auto' would kick in the defaults defined by specs like OpenType. This model makes good text rendering an "opt-in" model. I strongly believe authors and users should have good text rendering by default and not have to opt in to it. The impetus should instead be on browser vendors to optimize their text layout code so that performance considerations aren't an issue here. I think that's definitely possible and much better for the web in the long run. Regards, John Daggett [1] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86071
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 00:48:38 UTC