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

Re: real vs. synthetic width glyphs

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:06:12 -0400
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE02383B.F5A3%kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>


On 2013/07/09 21:49, "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote:

>
>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*.

Sylvain said he's perfectly fine to allow additional tweaks if doing so
produces better results for cases such as #12 and fantasia's example.
Florian is open to do additional tweaks too. It looks to me that it
exactly matches to the resolution.

It's not clear to me if you're fine with such a half-open-ended approach.
If you're, we're all in consensus.

/koji
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 13:06:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:32 UTC