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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:18:49 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F01782907B357A7@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[L. David Baron:]
> 
> 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

Doh. Yes, my bad. Thanks.

Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 19:19:28 GMT

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