- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:45:22 -0700
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 03/18/2010 02:01 PM, fantasai wrote: > > You may consider the problem unimportant, but there are several WG > members that disagree. If @font-face rules are unnecessarily unweildy, > design a better alternative. The feedback you've gotten is that > font-specific settings should be tied to the font, because whether or > not they're likely to fail gracefully, they have no consistent or > predictable meaning across font faces: once fallback is triggered, > you get a random result. Just to give you something to kick around, here's one approach: 1. Use 'font-variant' descriptor to set variants for the font overall @font-face { font-family: MyFancyFont; font-variant: stylistic(2,3); /* alternate 'g' and 'W' forms */ } @font-face { font-family: MyAwesomeMonospace; font-variant: styleset(1,5); /* more distinct l/1/I glyphs, capitalize esszet as Versal-Esszet */ } 2. Use @alt-set to define a named alternate set @font-face { font-family: MyFancyFont; font-variant; stylistic(2,3) styleset(1,3); @alt-set swishy { styleset(7) /* swishy ascenders and descenders */ swash(2) /* swash caps set #2 */ } } @font-face { font-family: MyAwesomeMonospace; font-variant: styleset(1,5); @alt-set swishy { styleset(4) /* more curvy, flourished glyph set */ } } @font-face { font-family: Gabriola; /* Installed on Windows 7 machines */ @alt-set swishy { styleset(5) } } 3. Names sets, but not numbered settings, are allowed in font-variant property: body { font-family: MyFancyFont, Gabriola, Monotype Corsiva, serif; } pre, code, samp { font-family: MyFancyMonospace, monospace; } h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-variant: alt-set(swishy); /* named set ignored where not defined: i.e. for Monotype Corsiva and the serif fallback */ } <h1>All About <code>font-variant</code>!</h1> <p>This body text is more subdued than the header.</p> <pre>This code example matches the monospace font in the heading, but is likewise more straightforward.</pre> ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2010 21:46:00 UTC