W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2015

Re: Proposal: add a "small-caps" value to "font-synthesis"

From: Myles C. Maxfield <mmaxfield@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:46:04 -0700
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ted O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-id: <14A201DA-FC3B-4ADC-A209-7BAFAA3AAF70@apple.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
I agree. This is good.

--Myles
> On Jul 30, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> On 7/30/15, 4:32 PM, "Myles C. Maxfield" <mmaxfield@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 7/30/15, 2:42 PM, "Myles C. Maxfield" <mmaxfield@apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> The font-synthesis CSS property is a way for authors to opt-out of 
>>>> synthesized font traits such as bold or italics. It seems reasonable 
>>>> to 
>>>> add small-caps to this set. Using "font-synthesis: small-caps;" would 
>>>> specify that, if a small-caps font cannot be found, to use a 
>>>> non-small-caps font without synthesizing smaller, capital, text.
>>>> 
>>>> What are your thoughts?
>>> 
>>> I like the idea of disallowing shrunken small caps, but font-synthesis 
>>> appears to be specified in the reverse of your usage: 
>>> “font-synthesis:weight;” allows smearing and “font-synthesis:none;” is 
>>> the 
>>> setting to disallow it. That makes it difficult to add new categories 
>>> of 
>>> synthesis blocking using that property.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Alan
>> 
>> Whoops! You are right.
>> 
>> Please consider the amended proposal of adding the new CSS value, and 
>> adding this new value to the initial value of font-synthesis.
>> 
>> You are correct about the compat risk. It seems that the original 
>> property probably should have been created to mean the inverse of what it 
>> means today. Alas, i've misplaced my time machine.
>> 
>> Given that font-synthesis is rarely used (and small-caps is also rarely 
>> used), do you have opinions regarding adding this new value anyway?
>> 
> 
> I’d be in favor of adding the value, since I agree the compat risk is 
> small. And I'd like a way to turn off shrunken small caps.
> 
> But since we’re changing the initial value anyway, what about changing it 
> to ‘all’? Then we could add new values without changing the initial value, 
> and limit future compat risk to new behavior for the ‘none’ value.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alan
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:46:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:18 UTC