- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 04:39:43 -0400
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> I think this last point gets to the heart of this issue, what possible real-world scenario > requires this additional complexity? I think we need at least to have a concrete example > of an authoring pattern combined with actual fonts that requires this. Without an actual > strong reason I think we should simply omit the "disable full-width variants" requirement. What I can't get well of this discussion is that, it looks to me that we all agree on the use case. It's already demonstrated at EXAMPLE 19 of the spec[1]. fantasai and I assumed that authors would want to use 'text-transform: full-width' or 'font-variant’ value of ‘full-width' to achieve the effect. A few weeks ago, you proposed that, authors may want to use full-width code points instead, so we added that complexity. Now you're saying it's too complex. Why did we then added full-width code point complexity? It looks to me that, all agree on the real-world scenario. It's just we don't agree on which method authors would use, neither of us can provide proof. Am I looking at this issue incorrectly? What did I miss? [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes/#text-combine-horizontal /koji
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 08:40:13 UTC