- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:51:24 +0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANz3_EZt7ka88GNp1_+hh0fjGY2UDbxpZGR=NFDwnzAWEEjYqQ@mail.gmail.com>
I don't understand how these are supposed to work in the current draft. At the font level, there's a "salt" feature, implemented by a type 3 (alternate substitution) lookup. For each glyph id, this will result in an ordered list of alternate glyph ids. The usual behavior in an editing environment is that the UI allows the user manually to select the appropriate alternate. An important point is that alternate N for glyph X does not necessarily have any stylistic relationship to alternate N for glyph Y: the effect of a particular alternate index is glyph-specific. For example, in the Microsoft Consolas font: - alternate #1 for "f" adds a horizontal base - alternate #1 for "i" makes the bottom of the vertical stroke curve to the right (the default glyph has a horizontal base) - alternate #2 for "i" curves the top of the vertical stroke to the right - alternative #1 for "j" is like alternate #2 for "i" - alternate #1 for "l" is like alternate #1 for "i" - alternate #1 for "r" is like alternate #1 for "f" - alternate #2 for "r" changes the curvature of the horizontal part of the glyph - alternate #3 for "r" is like alternate #1 for "j" etc So the kind of thing I would want to do is to define stylistic feature value names such as: - horizontal-base: use alternate #1 for "f" and #1 for "r" - curve-base: use alternate #2 for "i", #1 for "j" and #3 for "r" If I have understood the current draft correctly, it only allows the definition of a stylistic feature value name by using a particular alternate index uniformly for all glyphs. This doesn't seem to me to be quite what is needed. James
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 03:52:10 UTC