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

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

From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:12:34 -0700
Message-ID: <2B9FBACA-91F0-4813-9513-A2797843DEA3@adobe.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
I think font fallback is, for better or worse, part of the web. Designers who don't want to see simulations of fonts have lots of ways to ensure it rarely happens. Because tags like <em> or even <i> often convey meaning in text information, I think it's important that that meaning get through to the reader when all else fails.

-Christopher


On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Phinney
> <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> I find it strange that "show a different font that has this variant"
> is acceptable/preferable to "simulate this variant in the font I
> specified", but shrug.  It's definitely not a position that I hold,
> and I've been using @font-face in my work for several years.
> 
> I'd strongly desire some way to say "please simulate variants I'm not
> explicitly specifying"; I don't particularly care whether this is the
> default or some extra option I have to specify in @font-face.
> 
> (This could possibly be related to the floated idea of a @font-family
> rule for easy grouping of fonts....)
> 
> ~TJ
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 01:13:13 GMT

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