W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: My solution of webfonts problem

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:30:57 +0200
Message-ID: <2285a9d20804200230vfbdd9a2i370d5058b9b5dae0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net>
Cc: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>

On 20/04/2008, Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net> wrote:
>  On Apr 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > If a local font has the same name as a web font and has wider Unicode
> > coverage, and the page includes text that should be rendered by the
> > web font with Unicode values beyond its coverage but that are covered
> > by the local font, should the UA mix the two?
> I would say yes, because font-family, according to the spec, is supposed to
> look for the availability of _each character_ by going down the list of
> preferred fonts.
> ...
> {font-family: Constantia[web-font], Constantia[system-font], [second choice
> font, etc.] }

Right, on balance I think this is ideal.

Maybe it is presumptuous though, assuming that fonts that share the
same name look the same?

We can see from any large font publisher catalog - say
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/A.html - that there are many fonts with
generic names that are not restricted by trademarks. I speculate that
the namespace of font names might be full of clashes. It might not
though; perhaps someone from a font publisher could give an informed
opinion :-)

Maybe a UA would try to do some complex guess work based on PANOSE-1
(but, I take Paul's point that is has a poor structure for use on the
global web :-) or analyzing the font's visual structure, but since UAs
want pages to be painted on screen within a second or two, I find the
premise of doing complex operations like that suspect.

Received on Sunday, 20 April 2008 09:31:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:35 UTC