- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:27:02 +0200
- To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "Paul Nelson" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net>
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:56:27 +0200, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > Hi Erik! > >> Once a webfont has been installed for use in a UA I don't see >> why it would have to be limited to the webpage that included the >> @font-face. >> I'm for example thinking of the case where all the systemfonts didn't >> contain glyphs for some particular range, while a webfont happened >> to do so. I think in such a situation it would be better to show some >> text using the webfont rather than to show missing glyphs (usually >> hollow rects) or even no text at all. > > I understand the reasoning here, showing *something* is better than > missing glyph boxes or question marks but in this case allowing a > downloaded webfont to be used in the system font fallback process would > lead to rather odd behavior, the page rendering would effectively become > a function of the browsing history. That's true, assuming the UA doesn't persistently cache the fonts of course. Cheers /Erik -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:26:10 UTC