[css-fonts-4] all-small-caps vs unicameral scripts
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
css-fonts-4
i18n-hlreq
i18n-ilreq
i18n-jlreq
i18n-tracker
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 4.9k
- Forks
- 816
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
WebKit recently got a bug filed against our all-small-caps implementation complaining that we are synthesizing small-caps for unicameral scripts (Japanese, specifically). The reporter pointed to Firefox as having the right behavior. Opening this issue to ask a few questions, particularly to @jfkthame:
- Not synthesizing for
small-capsis unquestionably the right behavior, but forall-small-caps, where the idea is to get all the letters and symbols to match, is this the right behavior? It would create distinct sizes for glyphs belonging to bicameral vs unicameral scripts. - If yes, then we shouldn't synthesize for any unicameral scripts. What do we do for symbols and punctuation, then? Should they match the sizing of unicameral scripts (full size), or those of bicameral scripts (shrunk down)?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the all-small-caps questions in this issue and the linked WebKit bug 158522, then compare the behavior reported for Firefox. Done requires a resolved specification position on unicameral scripts and on the sizing of symbols and punctuation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- css
- Domain
- web-dev
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100