- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, www-style@w3.org, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Koji Ishii wrote: > > *** So the net effect with most well-designed fonts is *** > > *** that only one or two codepoints are actually *** > > *** affected by this fallback! [1] *** > > > >Yes, there are fonts that lack vertical alternates for more Tr > >codepoints [2] but these are fonts that are also missing vertical > >alternates for Tu codepoints, so no matter what you won't be seeing > >correct layout in all situations. When seen in the context of actual > >fonts, the benefits of this feature seem quite trivial. > > > >The "optional" nature of this fallback as currently specified will > >also lead to confusion for authors. > > This is one of my questions not answered yet from my point of view; you > say "trivial," and also say "lead to confusion." If trivial, it should not > lead to confusion. What did I miss? Confusion in the sense that an author uses a given Tr codepoint, reviews his content in browser A with a given font and doesn't realize until later that browser B displays it differently due to differences in fallback behavior. If an author simply sees the problem in all browsers, they can use explicit markup to workaround the problem. John Daggett
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 04:42:58 UTC