Re: [css-fonts] font-size property and font-weight-property

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:02:10 -0800
fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 01/15/2018 05:15 PM, Dennis Heuer wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:27:21 -0800
> > fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> It is an absolute size because its size is not relative to anything
> >> else in the page: it is absolute in the same way that px sizes are
> >> absolute. The fact that it's a named constant doesn't make it any
> >> less absolute.
> > 
> > First, it's called a keyword, not a constant. A keyword is only a
> > reference (into a table, as stated in the document explicitly.)
> 
> The keyword behaves as a named constant, is what I was trying to
> point out. (Other keywords do not behave as named constants: their
> behavior varies depending on other factors and cannot be mapped to an
> absolute px value.)
> 
> > Second, 'xx-large' (funny that is!) is relative to any similar
> > element in the page that might be set to 'xx-small'. Please don't
> > answer that everything's relative. Even though you would have
> > gotten over your thinking in absolutes...
> 
> I think you are the one who is trying to argue that everything is
> relative. :)

I personally can handle this correctly...

> 
> 36px anywhere in the document is 36px. This is what makes it an
> absolute length. xx-large is the same.
> 
> > You seem to only think in implementation details of a UA, even
> > though css will be written by layouters. From the viewpoint of a
> > layouter, who might just not care if the browser has a table or
> > not, the name 'xx-large' for a 'keyword' is not addressing any
> > guessable absolute value. Get the perspective right, please!
> 
> The exact value is not guessable, indeed, but its relation to the
> other keywords like x-small is quite guessable.

So what is this talking about absolute values when you agree that the
keywords are used and only understood to be relative to each other?
This is what I talk about. You mix up perspectives (to always be right
no matter how you turn.) See what you are talking!

> >> It is far too late to drop any keywords from font-size; these have
> >> existed since CSS1 and are widely used on the Web. As Florian
> >> explained, we cannot make changes that break considerable amounts
> >> of existing content.
> > 
> > Scan the list if you did not read my comment about W3C not knowing
> > about versioning even though using github ;) Scan for @css: 3;
> 
> Yes, and unfortunately, I don't have the time to write a detailed
> explanation of why the Web (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, the DOM), is
> unversioned. But that is how it is. CSS was designed for this
> reality, this is why we have forwards- compatible parsing rules and
> @supports.
> 
> Fwiw, the HTML Working Group tried to version it by creating XHTML2
> but it was a failure *because* it was versioned.

Could name enough counter examples. However... There definitly was more
to the story of XHTML, which was abandoned by the outer world before it
was released. And, ah, what about WhatWG? ... Let's drop this part!

> >>> You dropped the explanation to the 9-scale. Without explanation
> >>> the long numbers don't seem to mean anything specific to remember
> >>> well. Even though they look alike and make people wonder why they
> >>> behave so strange. The strange behaviour is actually still
> >>> reasoned about.
> >>
> >> I don't understand this complaint about "strange behavior" here.
> >> They're just numbers.
> > 
> > For a pragmat! For a user of the standard they look like, say,
> > marks on a scale. Don't know why ;) Though these marks look so huge
> > like they have very important meaning and so wisely stepped as if
> > they are perfect numbers, they behave different with different
> > fonts. For a user that is STRANGE! Thin, instead, is thin. If it is
> > so thin or so thin is not important. It is thin, and that is ok!
> > Css should guarantee that thin is thin and everything's fine!
> 
> We can't do that, because there is no font technology that creates an
> absolute scale of boldness across all fonts.

Again this word 'absolute'. As you already guessed, I myself don't use
this. I also don't need it. My guess was benchmarking (consider your
test-suites for the browsers as part of a font-breaks-layout-how-so
benchmarking), once done on the user's system and then cached...
There are other imaginable ways... This is possible. Maybe it will never
be done. That's a different issue... It was just a guess... Or a please!

> If you stick to a single font family--and choose one with sufficient
> weight variants--then you can get the predictable behavior you want.
> For example, Avenir has six weights. And in the future, variable font
> technology will allow interpolation of weight across the scale, so you
> can get many more options with such a font.
> 
> >>> I'd also prefer more clarity. The terms/numbers should refer to
> >>> *concrete* mean weights (as factors!?) to which the user agent
> >>> shall seek *close* alternatives. Even the latter seems to be not
> >>> guaranteed by the matching algorithm in section 5:
> >>
> >> What the numbers mean is determined by the font designer. CSS does
> >> not have any control over the thickness of the strokes; the
> >> meaning of 100 vs 400 is determined by the fonts.
> > 
> > You get the point? Read the above again!
> 
> See above.
> > You know that this is only relatively relative and only guessing for
> > what I argued about. I'd rather like to know certain behaviour of a
> > font that is not neccessarily catched with em, like how it spans. I
> > guess that this can only be benchmarked. Or do you provide all these
> > font options to let me configure down the font to behave? How does
> > that look alike? However, I still don't see how to do this
> > effectively because of the differences between the options, and
> > because the user can override this...
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "spans", but the ch unit is keyed to the
> font pitch. You can use that.

Webopedia: https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/pitch.html

In proportional-pitch fonts, different characters have different
widths, depending on their size. For example, the letter d would be
wider than the letter I. Proportional fonts, therefore, have no pitch
value. 

Whatever, using fonts will stay being a matter of trust - in the 0, if
i'm correct? Or is that different from browser to browser?

Just to mention here: In all sources I read, like the css specs,
firefox manuals and wikipedia, em reflects to pt, and pt reflects to
em. This often via 'font-size' which itself reflects back and forth.
This is also very helpful!

> And yes, the user can always override things. That is by design: the
> user should be able to adjust the page so that it is readable for
> him/her.
> 
> ~fantasai
> 
> 


Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Heuer
einz@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de

Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 23:24:15 UTC