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

Re: [css3-fonts] font descriptor default values

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:01:38 -0800
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0903032101m62a2fa21jeeabaa3641873136@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>> Because of this, my conclusion has always been that CSS was
>> fundamentally broken as far as font selection is concerned.
> Isn't this an issue that can be solved by font authors and platform
> developers?

By font authors; no. By platform developers; not retroactively

> If someone makes a new font called "Vulgaris Neue" with several weights and
> in condensed and expanded versions they should have no problem keeping all
> these faces within the same family if they so choose.

Urm, tell that to Windows GDI.

> On the other hand, if someone puts every face in a different family, it's
> not clear why CSS should be responsible for doing the heavy lifting to try
> and straighten everything out.

Font developers MUST split up any family greater than four members
(occupying the usual roles, regular, italic, bold, bold italic), at
least as far as Windows GDI apps are concerned. Else their fonts won't
work properly in most Windows applications.

In OpenType and TrueType, there are a variety of name fields
available, and font developers can express the "real" family grouping
just fine alongside the GDI-friendly one. But that's not what gets
shown to GDI apps, including browsers AFAIK. Mac OS doesn't have these
restrictions, but as long as any major OS API does, there's an issue.



"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
- Sir Winston Churchill
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 05:02:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:24 UTC