> On 23 Jun 2015, at 18:45, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2015, at 03:13, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote: >> >> Le 2015-06-22 14:03, Florian Rivoal a écrit : >>>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 11:35, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote: >>>>> There seems to be no implicit (and no explicit) range limit to the number of consecutive characters when using 'text-combine-upright: all' but there is a range 2-4 limit with 'text-combine-upright: digits n': >>>>> Q1: is that assumption correct? (To me, this seems odd and incoherent.) >>>> Correct. >>>>> Q2: If there is no range limitation with 'text-combine-upright: all', then >>>>> why should there be one with 'text-combine-upright: digits n' where 'n' >>>>> would be a [2-9] digit? >>>> “all” is not likely to be affected much by the number of characters; it just measure the whole string, and shrink if needed. >>>> “digits” checks the number of characters, and thus could fail on specific number. A request was made to avoid implementations and testing that were never used in the real world. >>> I agree with Gérard. >>> I understand wanting to limit to 4 digits since there is no use case >>> for more if that makes implementations simpler. >>> I do not understand why the logic is not applied to the all value, >>> allowing it to only match up to 4 digits. >> >> Yes. Exactly what I thought. Thank you Florian. > > “all” is only about scaling. We don’t limit, for instance, transform: scale() even if scale factor such as 1,000,000 won’t be used at all, right? > > On the other hand, “digits" value has two effects; limits number of characters to apply, and when apply, it scales by 1em/width. I understand that that's what they do. But why? - FlorianReceived on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 18:17:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:55 UTC