- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:20:49 -0700
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 7/15/13 3:43 AM, "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote: > >Hope these examples make sense to agree that there are cases where the >use of width-variant does not produce the optimal results. I don't think that was ever in question. I thought the debate was about resolving on the proper *default* behavior. If with-variant glyphs work well for the main use-case then it seems an appropriate default. (Defaults, by definition, are not required to work well in all cases). Experts at both Adobe and Microsoft have told me that a) 2-3 digits is the main TCY use-case and b) width-variant glyphs, if any, should be used for this scenario. So unless we disagree on the feature's main use-case I'm not sure what prevents a resolution of John's proposal? > >[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes/#fig-mac >[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Jul/0028.html > >/koji > >
Received on Monday, 15 July 2013 16:21:20 UTC