W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1996

font specification in CSS1

From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 20:21:06 -0700
Message-Id: <199608090320.XAA05504@sweden.it.earthlink.net>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
How will CSS1 font weights map to actual font names?

The font weights in the CSS1 spec are extra-light, light, demi-light,
medium, demi-bold, bold, and extra-bold. One version of Helvetica has
weights of ultra-light, thin, light, roman, medium, bold, heavy, and
black. Some will map, some won't. If you spec Helvetica family medium
weight, do you get roman (regular) or medium (bolder)?

Given that in most fonts 'medium' is bolder than 'regular' (also
called 'book' or 'roman') weight, and that there are usually more
'bolder' weights than 'lighter,' a better set of weights would be
ultra-light, extra-light, light, regular, medium, demi-bold, bold,
extra-bold, and ultra-bold, with regular as default. This isn't
ideal, just much more likely to get a close match to the preferred
weight.

Some font families are very inclusive, with condensed, extended and
outline versions under the same family name. The current CSS1
specification does not allow specifying these styles. Could
compression and outline values be added to font-style?

BTW, according to the CSS1 spec, "'italic' is commonly used to label
slanted text, but the term is not appropriate for sans-serif fonts
(whose slanted fonts are called 'oblique')." This is not accurate. An
'oblique' font maintains the same basic form as its roman version and
is often computer-generated. An 'italic' font has been restyled and
redrawn. There are oblique serif fonts and italic sans-serif fonts.

David Perrell
Received on Thursday, 8 August 1996 23:27:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:45 GMT