- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:13:03 +0900
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALYZoVNSaNj1KPw7UxVU44gV58qOR7cPQhX2y5mh7vuKCHjApw@mail.gmail.com>
Xidorn Quan wrote: > OK, then, let's add a keyword for 'font-size', say 'ruby-text', and > make it be computed according to ruby-position. It is computed to 30% > when ruby-position is inter-character, and 50% otherwise. Adding keyword values like this to 'font-size' affects the parsing of the 'font' shorthand so it's a fairly large impact change. The default stylesheet font-size settings for ruby elements should cover the majority of use cases. How frequently do you expect 'inter-character' will be used in practice? The ruby spec describes it as something that's a special case. I'm also suspicious that as to how "fixed" the percentages you've listed above actually are, especially across common use cases in Japan, Taiwan and China. If the common usage is slightly different in Taiwan vs. Japan for example then I think the fixed nature of 'ruby-text' won't be a win. I should also point out that house rules for typesetting like this often vary. The CLReq or the Taiwanese manual you linked to may state a single value but I suspect that's not written in stone and publishers would vary it based on context (e.g. larger ruby sizing for text aimed at younger children). The other issue is that on the web, sizing rules like this are distorted because of the discrete nature of smaller sizes for text displayed on screens. Where in printing a consistent ratio of text size to ruby size might be used, for screens it's common to bump up the relative ratio at smaller sizes. This is how superscripts and subscripts are displayed in HTML for example. Cheers, John
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 02:13:31 UTC