Re: [css3-fonts] Minor Comments

Sentence removed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:25:17 PM
Subject: Re: [css3-fonts] Minor Comments

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 08:40:07 UTC