- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:30:52 +0100
- To: Nick Gravgaard <me@nickgravgaard.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
[reordered] Le 02/01/2013 13:29, Nick Gravgaard a écrit : > I didn't get any feedback on this and suspect it was because I posted it > on the weekend before the holidays. > > If I sent my proposal to the wrong mailing list could someone suggest a > more appropriate one? This is the right mailing list. It helps to tag the subject with the short name of the spec (like I did here.) > I believe my proposal below is compatible with 'tab-size' (from the > current W3C Working Draft), more modern, more useful and is easy to > implement. I don’t know about easy to implement. Elastic tab stops feel a lot like tables, which are many things but easy. But reading your first message again tells me something that I missed the first time: your proposal is *not* to add elastic tab stops to CSS, but "only" multiple (different) values for tab-size, which presumably would be generated by a JavaScript editor. This sounds much more reasonable. That said, I don’t know if the use case is strong enough to justify adding this. I personally don’t care enough to implement it in WeasyPrint (we don’t even have integer tab-size yet), but I don’t know about other vendors. I can only notice that even <length> values for tab-size are marked "at risk" in the draft. By the way, the em unit is not the width of the 'm' glyph. It equals font-size, the height of the "em box". Integer values for tab-size are in multiples of the width of the U+0020 space. The ch unit is often much closer to that than em, but might still be different for non-monospace fonts. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#ch-unit In any case, your tabstop-widths proposed property could also accept integer values. No need for a new unit. Cheers, -- Simon Sapin
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2013 16:31:21 UTC