- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:37:58 -0700
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 28/5/13 18:01, John Daggett wrote: > > Jonathan Kew wrote: > re §6.12: >> # This means that explicitly disabling the kern feature will not >> # affect the application of kerning data found in the ‘kern’ table >> # (as opposed to kerning data associated with the kern feature in >> # the ‘GPOS’ table). >> >> This sounds like it was describing a now-obsolete state of the >> implementation in Firefox. For UAs that rely on HarfBuzz for text >> shaping, this is not currently true: if the UA asks HarfBuzz to >> disable the kern feature, this will disable *both* the kern feature >> in the ‘GPOS’ table *and* the application of the ‘kern’ table data. >> >> The connection between ‘GPOS’ and ‘kern’ table kerning is a >> low-level implementation detail; I'm not sure CSS Fonts needs to >> deal with this, but the current text does not describe what actually >> happens - at least for Gecko, but likely for other UAs as well if >> they use the HarfBuzz shaping engine. > > While the 'font-kerning' property defines behavior that covers > old-style kerning data (i.e. the 'kern' table), I explicitly > did not extend the same behavior to 'font-feature-settings: "kern" on'. > The 'font-feature-settings' property is a low-level way of passing > down specific OpenType parameter settings, so defining "extra" > behavior like this is sort of odd. > > I guess making an exception in this one case is okay but I definitely > think CSS should *not* be extending the meaning of specific features > by adding behavior to them ("let's have feature xxx mean .... when > conditions yyy and zzz are true"). > It looks like the current (19 August 2013) text here is unchanged, which means Gecko (and likely any other harfbuzz-based engine) will be non-compliant with this section. Were you going to include some kind of exception to reflect the real-world behavior we have here, or are you expecting the implementation to change? JK
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 23:38:29 UTC