W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: [css3-fonts] @font-face matching and font-style descriptor

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:56:12 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTim6UEAifjnHN7Q=9paEDkiz=JypspPd8j2oPeGm@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Sergey Malkin <sergeym@microsoft.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> > Sergey Malkin wrote:
> >
> >> This is what bothers me. This answer means simulated styles will never
> be
> >> used even if just single font is defined (like MyFont1 above). I do not
> >> think this is what Web developers would expect. This is different from
> >> people's experience with fonts installed locally...
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, I think I would want to nuance this by
> saying
> > 'different from people's experience with fonts installed locally in some
> > applications'. Professional design apps such as Adobe's do not employ
> > simulated styles except when explicitly activated by the user. In such
> apps,
> > the absence of an Italic font means no italic, not a simulated italic,
> and
> > in my opinion as a typographer that is vastly preferable to what apps
> like
> > Word do, mutilating typefaces in numerous ways with simulated styles,
> even
> > for single fonts that were never meant to be italic'd or bold'd.
>
> In my opinion as a simple web author, though, the exact opposite is
> true.  ^_^  I'd much rather have a simulated font if there's no
> appropriate variant specified, rather than just not matching at all
> and falling back.
>
> For example, check out http://www.xanthir.com/:wih in Firefox and
> Chrome.  The former will simulate font-variant:small-caps for my
> headings, which looks fine.  The latter won't, so the headings
> fallback to the platform serif.
>
> I'd prefer either simulation happening automatically, or at the very
> least a switch saying that it's okay to simulate some/all properties
> that aren't otherwise matched by an explicit declaration.
>
> Basically, I'm not at all sympathetic to a typographer/font developer
> saying "I don't want my font used at all if it's used in a way I can't
> control the display of", which I believe is essentially the argument
> of the no-simulation camp.  (Correct me if there is a more nuanced
> position I should be aware of.)
>

Um, yeah, there is. "I don't care whose fonts they are; as a designer, I
don't want to see fake bolds and/or fake italics showing up by accident in
my work." This is a pretty darn common position among serious graphic
designers, which is why the behavior in Adobe applications is the way it is.
(It happens to be a position I share, but that's not the point.)

The fact that most web developers have not taken this position to date is
not unrelated to the fact that web developers have not had real control of
fonts. There are other factors, of course.

Cheers,

T

-- 
Underpriced spite!  http://amultiverse.com/2010/06/28/ghostco/
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 00:56:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT