On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Ojan Vafai wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
For implementors, the spec already gives, to the pixel, the length
required (in the rendering section).
Speaking of which, the spec isn't quite accurate to what IE does here.
The
Do you mean that the vendors will correctly interpret references to
characters as references to glyphs but they will fail to understand
references to glyphs as themselves? That would be rather weird, IMHO.
Chris
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Do you mean that the vendors will correctly interpret references to
characters as references to glyphs but they will fail to understand
references to glyphs as themselves? That would be rather weird, IMHO.
Weirdness is, sadly, par for the
Regarding 4.10.4.2.4 The size attribute
URL:http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/forms.html#
the-size-attribute:
The user does not see characters, she sees glyphs. If the text input
control uses a variable-spaced typeface, the user agent must consider the
maximum glyph
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Regarding 4.10.4.2.4 The size attribute
URL:http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/forms.html#
the-size-attribute:
The user does not see characters, she sees glyphs. If the text input
control uses a variable-spaced
The algorithm [1] for converting a character width to pixels is good indeed,
except that it should be formulated in terms of glyphs and not characters
because stand-alone characters are not displayed or perceived as such for
some scripts.
If the primary font for which the algorithm is being run
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
The algorithm [1] for converting a character width to pixels is good
indeed, except that it should be formulated in terms of glyphs and not
characters because stand-alone characters are not displayed or perceived
as such for some scripts.
As
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
For implementors, the spec already gives, to the pixel, the length
required (in the rendering section).
Speaking of which, the spec isn't quite accurate to what IE does here. The
spec lists (size-1)×avg + max as the converting
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
All user agents should take the effective language into account for the
purpose of evaluating the average character width. This is not how the
browsers currently behave. However, since the rendering section is
non-normative, describing the
Using the word glyph instead of character, where appropriate, obviously
does not improve the readability of the specification. However, not using
the word glyph makes that part simply incorrect for a large number of
people whose culture has the disadvantage of being ignored by the leading
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Using the word glyph instead of character, where appropriate,
obviously does not improve the readability of the specification.
However, not using the word glyph makes that part simply incorrect for
a large number of people whose culture has
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
For implementors:
The size attribute gives the average number of glyphs that the reader of the
page will be able to see when the control is rendered and completely filled
with text. (This depends on the language of the control and the current
For implementors:
The size attribute gives the average number of glyphs that the reader of the
page will be able to see when the control is rendered and completely filled
with text. (This depends on the language of the control and the current
style and accounts for ligature-driven scripts like
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, James Graham wrote:
The phrase The size attribute gives the number of characters that, in a
visual rendering, the user agent is to allow the user to see while
editing the element's value. is phrased misleadingly like a UA
conformance criterion even though it is not. It
The phrase The size attribute gives the number of characters that, in a
visual rendering, the user agent is to allow the user to see while editing
the element's value. is phrased misleadingly like a UA conformance
criterion even though it is not. It doesn't account for the fact that a
15 matches
Mail list logo
