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


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

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

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

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

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011

Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite

Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 01:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:09 UTC