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

Re: font specification in CSS1

From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:21:20 -0700
Message-Id: <199608122134.OAA11302@andorra.it.earthlink.net>
To: "Jon Bosak" <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Jon Bosak wrote:
> Well, you've had four years to pressure the font vendors into
> complying with the standard.  If you don't make it clear that this
is
> a requirement, why should they bother?

I'd rather they didn't. Except for the replacement of "semi-" with
"demi-" and the exclusion of "ultra-", the weight specifiers are the
same as CSS1. Refer to my original message for arguments against.

How am I and millions of others who know fonts by name going to make
the translations? Who is going to make the call as to where a current
font fits in this scheme? Or will classification be based on average
white space for the entire glyph set? (That won't work. "Medium" in
one font could be "extra-bold" in another. And what of the case where
two fonts of the same family fall within the same weight class?)

Fonts are individual expressions, and are no more precisely
classifiable than paintings and books. Even general classifications
(refer to comments about "Humanist" in other messages) don't always
work.

In my view, any classification of fonts according to structural
parameters should be hidden from users, not imposed on them. Existing
full names are already structured to provide weight, compression, and
angularity information. Standardization is a commendable goal, but
there are times when niche-fitters need some restraint.

David Perrell
Received on Monday, 12 August 1996 17:35:49 GMT

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