- From: Eric Muller <emuller@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:21:16 -0800
- To: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On 3/1/2012 10:14 PM, Ambrose LI wrote: > Oh, sorry, I missed that part. I guess he did say UA dependent then, > for the specific use case of text-orientation:upright plus fonts that > do not have vertical metrics. What I meant by "give room for implementations" is fairly broad. It did include "UA dependent", but it also included "do not impose costly-to-implement behaviors that do not work too well anyway". For example, imposing to use the bounding boxes is certainly more expansive than using a glyph-independent metric. On the topic of "UA dependent", I find the term somewhat too binary to account for the real world. Unless and until the specifications give a complete description of the result down to the pixel, there will be some variation between implementations; the question is what is tolerable. And even getting to a narrow range to variation will be tricky without diving heavily in the font specifications. Finally, some areas will probably never be in reach of standardization: bounding boxes come to mind, at least when they account for rasterization artifacts. Eric.
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 17:21:53 UTC