W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [css3-fonts] new editor's draft

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:39:52 +0100
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>

I agree with you at this point.

A solution can be the introduction of a rule that say a @font-face rule 
containing unknown property should be dropped by the browser.
Is that solving the problem ?

    /* Browsers that don't support hypothetical "font-transform" */
    @font-face {
        font-family: X;
        src: url('My Font.ttf');

    /* Browsers that support "font-arrange" will only consider this last 
declaration */
    @font-face {
        font-family: X;
        font-transform: uppercase;
        src: local('Times New Roman');


From: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:30 PM
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>; "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [css3-fonts] new editor's draft

> On Tuesday 2009-01-20 12:55 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to simply require using MyFont1 and MyFont2 rather
>> than having some special behavior in case you have several @font-face
>> blocks using the same identifier?
>> I personally would expect the last @font-face rule there to override the
>> first.
> Are you proposing that @font-face rules that have identical
> descriptors (other than 'src') drop all but the last identical
> descriptor?  That's problematic because then you then have to
> determine which @font-face rules are identical, which could be a big
> problem if we ever want to add a new descriptor like 'unicode-range'
> or add to the syntax of 'unicode-range' (in which case the
> descriptor would be dropped).
> Consider, for example, what would have happened in that rule if
> implementations initially implemented @font-face without
> 'unicode-range' (as some are), and then 'unicode-range' were
> introduced in the next level of the specification.  In such a
> situation, pages wouldn't be able to split fonts and use
> 'unicode-range' until all implementations they cared about supported
> it.
> -David
> -- 
> L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
> Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 16:40:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:23 UTC