W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

Re: [css3-font] unquoted font family names with whitespace

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <2126062279.13171343.1332115269398.JavaMail.root@zimbra1.shared.sjc1.mozilla.com>

Simon Pieters wrote:

> > Unquoted family names must be sequences of CSS identifiers, in both
> > CSS 2.1 and CSS3 Fonts.  So you're right, family names don't need to
> > be quoted but I still think recommending quotes is a good rule of
> > thumb, it avoids authors needing to understand precisely what is and
> > isn't a "sequence of CSS identifiers" (the spec does show several
> > examples of invalid names).
> 
> In that case the spec should recommend to always use quotes for font
> family names. I'm fine with that outcome, but I'm not so happy with
> the current text.

No, I'm not suggesting (nor does the spec suggest) that family names
*always* be quoted, either as a requirement or as a rule of thumb. 
Authors have quoted names in the past because browsers didn't always
support names with spaces.  With user agents that follow the CSS 2.1
rules, names only need to be quoted when they aren't a sequence of CSS
identifiers.  But since authors are human and don't keep parsing rules
at their fingertips, I think it's fine to suggest a rule of thumb. 
Maybe it's not some shining ideal but it works in practice.

> > In real world use, this is rarely a problem.  Font family names may
> > have spaces but typically don't start with numbers or use punctuation
> > characters.  Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions out there but they
> > generally aren't used on the web or in interchange situations (e.g.
> > email).
> 
> Still, many authors quote their font family names if they have spaces (and  
> omit the quotes if they don't), because that's what they have been told to  
> do.

That's because of spotty implementation support in the past.  As more
and more authors understand that this is a rule of the past, we'll move
beyond it.  Font family names which can't be left unquoted (e.g. Courier 10)
are relatively rare in practice.

We've come up with a reasonable syntax rule (i.e. family names that
aren't sequences of CSS identifiers must be quoted) but if authors want
to quote all family names, that works too.  The specs define the exact
rules but list a rule of thumb useful for those who don't want to delve
into whether a given font family name matches the syntax rule or not.

> > What *is* still a problem is the way in which browsers recognize as
> > family names a variety of other font names.  For example, "Arial" is
> > the name of a font family, names given to individual faces within that
> > family are *not*.  Incorrect name matching happens with many GDI-based
> > browsers (Chrome/IE7+8/Opera) which recognize full names (e.g. "Arial
> > Bold").  It occurs with Webkit browsers on OSX/iOS which recognize
> > Postscript names (e.g. "Arial-BoldMT").  These browsers will all fail
> > the CSS 2.1 test suite tests that check for this.  This is a real
> > problem because authors will use "Arial Bold", see that it works in
> > their given browser/environment and assume that it will work across
> > platforms/browsers.
> 
> That's a separate issue.

Sure, my point is simply that family names that require quotes aren't a
problem in general but other issues, such as the way user agents match
different additional naming schemes or handle localized family
names *are* problems!

Cheers,

John Daggett
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 00:01:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:52 GMT