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

RE: [css3-writing-modes] Examples of normal, unscaled glyphs work better than width-variant glyphs for text-combine-horizontal

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:03:58 -0400
To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E6A50DA42C0@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:galineau@adobe.com]
> 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?

I agree that we should work on main use-case and that's what I'm talking about.

I agree with a), but with b) only under condition where glyphs are not narrow enough. Can you check with the experts if they prefer normal glyphs v.s. width-variant glyphs if the normal glyphs are narrow enough?

I guess you might have asked preference between width-variants v.s. scaled, and I agree width-variants should win in the case. If you ask normal v.s. width-variants, I suspect all of them would prefer normal.

And two digits with narrow enough glyphs is the most common case I believe.

/koji

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 12:04:28 UTC

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