- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 05:19:08 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Rather than thinking of the generics as equivalent to a system `font-family` name, it is probably better to consider them as equivalent to an `@font-face` family, where a given family name can be derived from many different font files, each with different unicode ranges. Just with the added option of also dividing them by different language settings. (Which maybe _should_ be a font-face descriptor as well, kind of the opposite of [`font-language-override`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-3/#propdef-font-language-override), to combine two different font files that you want the browser to treat as a single font, auto-switching by language variant. But that's a separate issue.) But either way: if experienced web-spec-readers are getting confused and debating semantics, then the language could clearly use some clarification. How about: > 2.1.1. Generic font families > > All five generic font families must always result in at least one matched font face, for all CSS implementations. However, the generics may be composite faces (with different typefaces based on the Unicode range of the character, or alternatively on the language of the containing element). They are also not guaranteed to always be different from each other. > > User agents should provide reasonable default choices for the generic font families, which express the characteristics of each family as well as possible, within the limits allowed by the underlying technology. User agents are encouraged to allow users to select alternative choices for the generic fonts. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1736#issuecomment-323261766 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 18 August 2017 05:19:10 UTC