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

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

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:02:31 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120319190231.GA26894@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Monday 2012-03-19 18:49 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> 
> [L. David Baron:]
> > 
> > On Friday 2012-03-16 22:19 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > > My understanding is that this was good general advice since unquoted
> > > font family names may be somewhat more ambiguous in the font shorthand.
> > 
> > Families aren't any more ambiguous in the 'font' shorthand than they are
> > in 'font-family' because, in the 'font' shorthand, the family must come
> > immediately after the <font-size> [ / <line-height> ]?
> > part.
> > 
> 
> As line-height is optional and font-size can be a keyword I'd think ambiguity 
> is possible e.g. if you want to use Monotype's Medium Roman:
> 
> 	font: bold medium roman;
> 
> and...
> 
> 	font: bold 'medium roman';
> 
> 
> ...are not the same thing. The same issue could happen with fonts such as 
> 'Large Old English Riband", "Large OT", "Large" and a number of other fonts 
> for sale on MyFonts.com. I suspect there might even be families that start
> with 'small'.
> 
> Or am I missing something?

The second one is invalid because the 'font' shorthand *requires*
the size part.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 19:03:33 GMT

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