- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 22:53:05 -0700
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, www-style@w3.org
On 09/23/2013 07:47 PM, John Daggett wrote: > ... > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes/#text-combine-compression > > # A different implementation that utilizes OpenType layout features > # might compose the text first with normal glyphs to see if that fits, > # then substitute in half-width or third-width forms as available and > # necessary, possibly adjusting its approach or combining it with > # scaling operations depending on the available glyph substitutions. > > I think this whole example is problematic. The use of "simple" is > problematic, as is the use of "might". [...] John, the example is not, at this point, incorrect in any way that I can tell, and it's useful in that it illustrates various algorithmic interpretations of the normative prose. This is useful for implementers, even if it's not particularly useful for authors. If you want us to clarify the second example with more detail or concreteness in some way, that's fine, we can try to do that. But I don't think that removing it improves the spec. Nor do I think that tweaking the wording to imply that *your* algorithm is the only valid interpretation of the spec is a good idea. I am *not* in agreement to change the spec in such a manner. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 05:53:34 UTC