- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:09:27 +0100
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hello fantasai, Monday, February 4, 2013, 7:16:02 AM, you wrote: > # The use of combining diacritic marks creates many variations > # for an underlying letterform: > I don't understand this point. The "a" is not varying underneath > the diacritics. What did you mean here? I think that what is meant is that a set of variations are derived from the base letterform and the combining diacritic. Whether these are seen as a 'letter with an accent' or 'a different letter' is culturally dependent. Whether the glyph of the base lettterform is the same as the standalone version or different, depends on the font design. Perhaps The use of combining diacritic marks creates many variations derived from an underlying letterform: > # If a document contains characters not supported by the > # character maps of explicitly specified fonts, a user agent > # may use a system font fallback procedure to locate an > # appropriate font that does. > It took me several reads to understand what was going on in this > sentence. Maybe replace "explicitly specified fonts" with > "the CSS-specified fonts"? But the generic font families are also CSS specified fonts, though they are not explicitly specified. Really there are three sources of fonts - explicitly specified (i.e. named) fonts - CSS generic font families - any other font, as a last resort This sentence seems to be distinguishing the third case from the two preceding ones. Perhaps If the CSS-specified fonts (both explicitly named fonts, and the CSS generic font families) do not provide glyphs for some of the characters in a document, a user agent may use a system font fallback procedure to locate an appropriate font that does. > # Fallback can occur because fonts are not explicitly > # specified or because authors fail to explicitly > # indicate the encoding used by a document. > Fonts are always explicitly specified, because 'font-family' > always has a value, even if it's a generic family keyword. > So I don't understand the first clause. This sentence seems to distinguish the first and second cases I mentioned above. > Also don't understand the second clause. In what cases does > not explicitly indicating the document encoding trigger > fallback? I didn't understand that part either, mainly because determining the encoding of a document seems to belong to other specifications than CSS. And in general those specifications return some sort of value for the document encoding, not 'unspecified'. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 09:09:26 UTC