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 11:13:04 -0400
To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E57D9E9BEE1@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:galineau@adobe.com]
> 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.

If 1/n width glyphs exist, and if using existing 1/n glyphs is not optimal, are you OK to provide a way to override the default or not?

I hope us to clarify our goal.

If we want to avoid poor implementation, the current resolution should do.

If we want to prevent innovations, we need to prohibit someone to come up with better algorithms.

I understand we want the former, and not the latter.


Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 15:14:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:29 UTC