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

Re: [css3-fonts] revised definition of font-family

From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:34:15 -0400
Message-ID: <c7216d7e6da8818c84e834d9f4ebed6f.squirrel@ed-sh-cp3.entirelydigital.com>
To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>

Le Mar 15 mai 2012 20:41, John Daggett a écrit :
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> > During the F2F, Bert stated that he thought this was a change from
>> > CSS 2.1, that unquoted font family names like 'foo inherit' should
>> > not be rejected as invalid.  I don't really feel strongly either
>> > way but I'm wondering if you see a strong reason to make the use
>> > of any keyword within a multi-word font family name invalid.
>>
>> It *is* a change, but fantasai and I believe that it only
>> unintentionally allowed them before.
>>
>> The reason to disallow it is to have a consistent story for where
>> you can use 'inherit' and 'initial'.  "Only as the sole value of a
>> property" is easier to understand and teach than "only as the sole
>> value of a property, or a *piece* of a font-family name, unless it
>> conflicts with the former".
>
> If there aren't other situations where sequences of identifiers occur,
> then I don't think there's really any great reduction in complexity
> with this change, the language describing font families still needs to
> describe how to merge together sequences of space-separated
> identifiers and how to match these against font family names.  By
> simply saying that an unquoted font family name cannot be the same as
> a reserved keyword, we can define the behavior unambiguously without
> changing 2.1 behavior.
>
> I don't think this should be considered a 2.1 issue and we should
> avoid adding unnecessary errata unless there's a *very* good reason to
> do so.  Keeping Bert happy is also a good thing. ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> John Daggett

To John and Tab,

Personally, I do not want to get involved into this discussion; in fact, I
will accept whatever is decided. All I want to eventually know is: what is
the decision so that I can update

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/font-family-rule-004a.xht

and make it perfectly complying with CSS 2.1, section 15.3 and section
1.4.2.1.

As far as I know, right now,

font-family value: [ <string> | <ident>+ ]# | inherit

and where
  <ident>: user-defined identifier acting as a component value which
  represents any valid CSS identifier that is not a
  pre-defined keyword in that property's value definition.
  3.2. User-defined Identifiers: the ‘<identifier>’ type
  http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#identifiers

is the new CSS 2.1 syntax for font-family name.

I want to be informed if anything changes about the above.

Gérard
-- 
CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html

Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/

Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 01:34:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:54 GMT