Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3512
--- Comment #46 from John Daggett (:jtd) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-06-04 17:23:10 PDT --- (In reply to comment #43) > So, for what it's worth, the patch here has the same issue with narrower and > wider that we have with bolder and lighter for font-weight; we really need to > store an ordered list of narrower/wider values if we want to get this correct > relative to the fonts available, on a per-character basis. So if we fix one, > we might want to fix the other at the same time. That's actually what we do for bolder/lighter, at least on Mac/Windows. The real tricky part of the problem is dealing with synthetic bold because you need to know whether a face was available for "weight + n steps of bolder" when deciding whether to enable synthetic bold or not, as in the inner-most span below: Font family: Bongo (two weights 200, 400) .base { font-family: Bongo; font-weight: 200; } .b { font-weight: bolder; } <p class=base>Should be light face <span class=b>with regular face <span class=b>and synthetic bolded regular face</span> </span> </p> So for font-stretch we may have to deal with the same issues if we're going to do synthesized condensed/expanded (Stuart is in favor, I'm on the fence). As for the numbers, we probably need to pass around relative widths also (e.g. 501 for "normal + 1 step wider") as we do for font-weight. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list