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

Re: real vs. synthetic width glyphs

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <1019997814.168286.1373376997251.JavaMail.zimbra@mozilla.com>

Koji Ishii wrote:

> 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.

Your hypothetical edge case (#12) is about what to do when specific
characters lack width variants.  Elika's edge case is about
combinations of half-width glyphs not being better than scaling
default proportional glyphs.

I've already posted a response regarding Elika's example, as has Sylvain.

My response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0139.html

Sylvain's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0141.html

My examples showing why scaling proportional glyphs doesn't lead to consistent results:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Jul/0014.html

I don't think the behavior in either of these edge cases justifies
making the default behavior be anything other than "use width variants
if they exist for all characters, scale otherwise".

Sylvain put it best:

  If the author is requesting a small chunk of text to be laid
  out in a manner for which the font he has *chosen* includes
  specifically designed glyphs I think the small-caps analogy is
  apt. I do not believe we claim the UA should make up those
  glyphs for him using proprietary magic.

John Daggett
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 13:37:07 UTC

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