- From: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 20:59:08 -0400
- To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Cameron McCormack'" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "'www-svg'" <www-svg@w3.org>
Okay, then, then I'm cool with it. Cheers D -----Original Message----- From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:14 PM To: David Dailey Cc: Cameron McCormack; www-svg Subject: Re: two thoughts on lengthAdjust="" modes On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote: >> The second is being able to say that the adjustment should only be >> performed when the actual text length is greater than the author's specified length. >> If the text is shorter, in many cases I think the author would prefer >> to have the text shown as is, rather than expanded out to fit textLength="". > > I strongly disagree. The reason I use these adjustments has been to ensure that text condenses or stretches to the exact size needed for things like viewports, buttons, etc. Given the browser idiosyncrasies in how font-families are rendered, together with inconsistencies in how browsers give feedback on getBBox() and other messages applied to characters, how else is an author able to get things to fit. Note that Cam was suggesting having *some way* to indicate that the glyphs shouldn't stretch, only squish; he wasn't suggesting that we change the general behavior such that text never stretches. Your response seems to indicate that you read his paragraph as suggesting the latter. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 00:59:40 UTC