- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 20:24:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The keywords `normal` and `bold` date to the earliest days of CSS1, when there was vastly less control over rendering than there is now. (In fact, the definition of `bold` is simply that it is a ["weight that is at **least as dark** as"](https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/#font-weight) `normal` i.e. no lighter, but it could be the same weight actually. Even then, a more precise set of numeric-like keywords (100, 200 etc to 900) were also specified. Bear in mind that the two CSS keywords map to the numeric vales and are pretty much unrelated to any words (`ultralight`, `book`, `heavy`, `black` etc) that may form part of the full font name, as those words are very irregular. In CSS Fonts 4, with support for variable fonts, this is extended to [any numeric value from 1 to 999](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-weight-prop). So in modern usage, you would specify the precise weight you want (in the `@font-face`) rather than relying on imprecise keywords. It would be rare to be satisfied with "any weight that is a bit lighter" than the normal weight. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4048#issuecomment-504561624 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 21 June 2019 20:24:46 UTC