RE: note about disabling font-variant

How about combining the two? Your text is better directed for authors, but it's hard to understand how it "can potentially affect." Fantasai's text can explain that.

If I understand correctly, didn't you mention (or agreed?) that if fonts that are affected by the removed wording, such as Adobe Ming Std, become majority, we may revisit the discussion? It looks to me that the text describe such situation very well.

/koji

-----Original Message-----
From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 11:11 AM
To: W3C Style
Subject: [css3-writing-modes] note about disabling font-variant


After the requirement to disable full-width variants was removed, in it's
place this note was added:

http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes/#text-combine-fullwidth


# Full-width glyph variations can also be chosen via the font-variant
# property or @font-face descriptor [CSS3-FONTS]. However since such
# variations do not affect the glyph shape in contemporary fonts,
# there is no explicit interaction with this feature currently. A
# future revision of this specification may require ignoring such
# declarations within the combined text if common usage makes such
# behavior desirable. 

I strongly object to this wording.  Who is this note addressed to and
what purpose does it serve?  You're conjecturing about possible future
WG decisions and as such I don't think that has any place in a spec.
It's just noise to those working on implementations and distracting to
authors trying to understand the 'text-combine-horizontal' property.

Either omit this note or replace it with one directed at authors:

  Properties that affect glyph selection, such as the
  'font-variant' and 'font-feature-settings' properties defined
  in [CSS3-FONTS], can potentially affect the selection of
  variants for digits or alphabetic characters included in
  <em>tatechuyoko</em> text runs. Authors are advised to use
  these properties with care when 'text-combine-horizontal' is
  also used.

That's more informative and serves a purpose I think.

Regards,

John Daggett

Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 19:47:44 UTC