W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2000

generic fonts and italic vs oblique

From: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:10:57 -0800
Message-ID: <38AAE831.839DDD24@netscape.com>
To: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Matthew Brealey wrote:
> For example, say I have P {font-family: cursive}. The UA is required to
> have an @font-face rule for cursive. In Opera for example, it is mapped
> to Times New Roman. This makes pages very ugly.

What pages? Who uses "cursive"?

> I think it would be better to allow P {font-family: cursive,
> sans-serif}, and not have the necessity of five @font-face rules.

No, we don't want to allow "sans-serif, serif", so CSS is fine as it is.

> This severely limits the utility of font-style: oblique because most
> people don't have oblique fonts, and for these people it would be useful
> to state that an italic one should be used instead; e.g., by the
> (backwards-incompatible) font-style: oblique, italic.

It is not a question of having oblique fonts or not. It depends on the
font family. Helvetica and Arial have oblique styles, but not italic.
Times on the other hand, has an italic style but no oblique.

But you do have a point. The spec is a little lop-sided at the moment.
It could be changed to be more balanced, allowing both italic and
oblique to specify a preference for that style, but to fall back to the
other when such a font is not available.

Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2000 13:14:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:53 UTC