- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:09:45 +0100
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
- Cc: "CSS WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com> wrote: > Basically, the thinking here was that, since font systems are somewhat diverse and fonts themselves use different encoded sequences, capitalizations, and other variations, this is a case in which both Unicode normalization and Unicode case folding are practical and justified. We would therefore recommend that you require Unicode NFC normalization and Unicode C+F case folding when comparing font names for selection. We think this is a special case because it is isolated and should have no side-effects on other parts of the Web, such as Selectors. It merely ensures that a given style sheet has the greatest likelihood of matching the intended font names as represented in the underlying system. Are the various font standards silent on this? It might still be good for CSS to point out how this boundary is crossed though. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 17:10:13 UTC