- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 23:25:17 -0700
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > fantasai wrote: >> >> Forgot another comment on this section... >> >> >> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-fonts/#font-stretch-prop >> >> # The scale is relative, so a face with a font-stretch value >> >> # higher in the list above should never appear wider. >> >> >> >> I think you mean s/relative/monotonic/ >> > >> > Nope, that's not what I mean. ;) It is monotonic but the point is >> > that the scale is not absolute, it's up to the type designer to decide >> > what's expanded vs. semi-expanded. >> >> Ok, but the explanation of "The scale is relative" (i.e. the "so >> ..." clause) is not explaining that at all, it's explaining that the >> scale is monotonic. So it sounds like you have two points here: >> >> * the scale is monotonic within a face, "so a face with a >> font-stretch value higher in the list should never appear wider". >> * the scale is relative to a particular face, so an expanded face >> in one face might be narrower than a semi-expanded face in another >> >> Is that catching your intent? > > No, I think the current wording is sufficient, relative is generally > understood to be the antonym of absolute and the use of monotonic is > unnecessary given the context. You seem to want to word it differently > but I don't see anything that really communicates anything in a better > way, just a different way. I agree with fantasai that what you wrote is *not* what you're clarifying it to us as. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 06:26:24 UTC