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 21:24:56 +0200
Message-ID: <12222237936.20031020212456@w3.org>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Monday, October 20, 2003, 7:58:52 PM, Henri wrote:


HS> On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 20:12 Europe/Helsinki, Tex Texin wrote:

>> If a browser supports Unicode, then all that may be  needed to display
>> the
>> script is the font.
>>
>> There seems to be an assumption that displaying minority scripts must
>> require a
>> concerted effort and a specialized system.
>> It doesn't need to be the case. Certainly some scripts are complex to
>> display.
>> Others are in the minority not because they are technologically 
>> difficult but
>> because there are not many speakers.

HS> For example, Mac OS X doesn't come bundled with a font for Georgian,
HS> but will render Georgian text (encoded as Unicode) if a font is 
HS> supplied.

Georgian is a good example, its easy to render.

HS> If a person wants to read Georgian and runs Mac OS X, why
HS> wouldn't (s)he install a suitable font instead of relying on Web sites
HS> to provide fonts via @font-face?

Conversely, why should they see all pages in the same font and why
should pages have to guess a list of font family names that happen to
cover Georgian?

HS> Surely it is reasonable to expect
HS> (s)he wants to read Georgian even when the site author isn't providing
HS> a font

Sure

HS> or when the text being read isn't a Web page.

Sure

I don't see why they should have to use the same font for everything,
however.




-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 15:25:21 GMT

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