W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2003

Re: CSS21 @font-face removal

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:51:50 +0200
Message-ID: <1535852265.20031020165150@w3.org>
To: "Kevin W." <null@ozforces.com.au>
Cc: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, W3c I18n Group <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>

On Monday, October 20, 2003, 7:46:09 AM, Kevin wrote:


>> I am sure there are good reasons for removing @font-face [2]
>> from CSS 2.1 font capabilities. [1].

KW> Probably only because there were no implementations of it at all
KW> (AFAIK),

Glad you added the AFAIK.

KW> and it was deemed too much work for not enough gain.  Leaving it in the
KW> spec wouldn't have really encouraged UAs to support it.

Perhaps it would, perhaps it would not, but taking it our clearly
discourages them.

KW> It's still in CSS3 though.

Big whoop - from Rec to working draft in five years. Thats progress.

>> 1) Do I understand correctly that in losing @font-face there is no 
>> longer a way to specify the url for fonts

Yes.

KW> Well we've never had an implementation of it.


Who is "we"? You missed out the "AFAIK". Given that there are multiple
implementations, a bit more research would be a good idea.

KW> If a UA wants to support
KW> it, they still can, as it's still in the CSS3 spec.

>> I have a concern that this impacts users of minority languages more
>> than others.

KW> I imagine if you want/need to read in a minority script, you would
KW> already have the required font(s).

If you are a majority user of that language and as long as you are
content with always seeing everything in the same font with no
stylistic variation.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 10:54:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:24 GMT