- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 18:14:02 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> If we chose format("woff2") features("CPAL,FVAR"), wouldn't old browsers then disregard the entire src descriptor? This is probably not what we want.
Wait, wouldn't they disregard up to the comma? And if so, isn't that *exactly* what we want? If old browsers (that don't understand `features()` ) are also old browsers (that don't understand variations) then this prevents old browsers from attempting to use the variable font. They go on to the fallback font.
So [my example](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/633#issuecomment-340527309) means they would reject fancy-font and use fallback-font instead.
> Therefore, we should go with the format("opentype", requires variations) proposal.
But without the comma, right?
--
GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/633#issuecomment-378345723 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2018 18:14:04 UTC