Re: real vs. synthetic width glyphs



On 7/9/13 6:06 AM, "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

>
>
>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.

Like John, I am saying the UA should be required to use half-widths (or 1/n
widths) glyphs if they exist. Just like UAs must use small-caps glyphs if
they exist, use a bold face if it's available etc. But when the fonts does
not provide 1/n glyphs then, as in the other cases above, the UA should
synthesize them.

And for those cases where using existing 1/n glyphs is not optimal then
yes, it is OK to provide a way to override the default.

>
>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 14:10:24 UTC