Re: real vs. synthetic width glyphs

Koji Ishii wrote:

> It looks to me that we're in consensus, right?
> 
> We all want to avoid UA to use poorer methods such as scaling when
> all grapheme clusters have the corresponding width-variant glyphs,
> and we all are perfectly fine to allow UA to do additional tweaking
> when it can produce even better results under some conditions.
> 
> And it looks to me that it is exactly what we resolved in the last
> conf call.
> 
> So, no one is objecting to the resolution, we're just confirming
> that we are on the same page. Correct?

Actually, I think I do see consensus given the responses on the list. 
User agents should be *required* to use width-specific variants when
the font has them.  This was *not* the resolution on the last call,
the resolution on the last call said this should be suggested but
*optional*.

John Daggett

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 12:49:41 UTC