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 12:00:27 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinBnxH6_2wWecK4bsfG7DxhaUNdpOrRQVGoex_7@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 1:56 AM, Thomas Phinney
<tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>wrote:

> 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.
>

I should clarify that I am not seeking a change in the default behavior, but
if the existing behaviors are to persist, it would be a Very Good Thing if
there were some mechanism to suppress or turn off all faux italics and faux
bold. Even if it is true that the majority does not need/want such a
mechanism, I expect that there are an awful lot of CSS features which are
not used by a majority of CSS users....

Regards,

T

-- 
Underpriced spite!  http://amultiverse.com/2010/06/28/ghostco/
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 11:01:00 GMT

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