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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 19:52:33 -0700
Message-ID: <4FB31671.2040204@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/15/2012 05:41 PM, John Daggett wrote:
> 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,

counter-reset accepts sequences of identifiers.

font-family is the only place where sequences of identifiers are joined
together and treated as a string.

If it's going to allow reserved keywords, then it needs its own identifier
type and can't use the generic one in Values and Units. But there is little
interop on the use of reserved keywords as part of an unquoted font name,
it's a very uncommon case, and I don't see a good reason to make parsing
more complicated here than it absolutely needs to be.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 02:53:04 GMT

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