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

Re: [CSS21] last edition: pity

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20519208.134991242779191096.JavaMail.root@cm-mail01.mozilla.org>
> I think WPF name matching system is a very interesting example of how
> hard it is to map real-life font families onto the Procrustean bed of
> CSS font families.

The faults you and others have pointed out seem to have more to do with
older API's like GDI, rather than a specific fault of the model per se. 
Font weight values in CSS are based on the weight values defined in

If GDI problems force vendors to ship with skewed values (e.g. 250 ==>
Thin, 275 ==> UltraLight, etc.), that's a complication but not something
that necessitates a change in the model.  Implementors will lose a
little more hair but it's not something that needs to get pushed through
to authors; specifying a thin face should result in a thin face if one
is available.

Do you have suggestions for a better model for weights?  Do you feel CSS
font weights should be any integer value between 100 and 900?  Or that
simply more weight values should be allowed, a 13-point scale instead of
a 9-point scale for example?

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 00:27:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:26 UTC