W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: [css3-fonts] ordinals

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:27:56 -0700
Message-ID: <521D8A5C.3010003@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 07/10/2013 01:18 AM, John Daggett wrote:
>
> fantasai wrote:
>
>> I guess I was a bit confused while reading the spec and thought they
>> were a variant of number forms so I didn't comment, but why are
>> ordinals under 'font-variant-numeric'? From my (new) understanding,
>> they're not numbers.
>
> It's under 'font-variant-numeric' because it's associated with the
> formatting of ordinal numbers, 1st, 2nd, 3rd.  The variant glyphs
> substituted are the raised versions of 'st', 'nd' and 'rd'.

Okay, but, they're still not actually numeric glyphs.

An earlier version of your spec had them in the same property as
superscripts and subscripts. That seems to make more sense to me.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number_%28linguistics%29
>
> Note: ordinals are not superscripts even though they are often
> confused with them.

That would be more reason to put them in the same setting as
superscripts, so that people notice they're two similar but
different things!

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 05:28:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:33 UTC