W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [css3-fonts] 'font-feature-settings' and BlueGriffon

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:24:35 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CDEF743A.6B59%galineau@adobe.com>


On 6/25/13 12:59 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>On 06/19/2013 12:46 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
>> FWIW, I have just added UI for the CSS Fonts Module Level 3
>> property 'font-feature-settings' to BlueGriffon. This is
>> available if you build yourself BlueGriffon from trunk and
>> I will probably have nightly builds with the feature enabled
>> tomorrow. Builds will be available from [1].
>>
>> I guess it will be an interesting playground for those of you
>> interested in font features. John, if you want me to implement
>> more features (for instance ss01 to ss20), please let me know.
>>
>> [1] http://bluegriffon.org/freshmeat/nightlies/latest

>
>It's interesting to play with, but my concern is that
>'font-feature-settings' isn't really designed for uses
>that are already covered by CSS3 'font-variant', and
>probably shouldn't be used for those. It doesn't have
>good cascading behavior, and is really meant for very
>specific cases where the author needs to access less
>common features. As the spec says,
>
>   # Authors SHOULD generally use ‘font-variant’ and its related
>   # subproperties whenever possible and only use this property
>   # for special cases where its use is the only way of accessing
>   # a particular infrequently used font feature.
>
>I think within @font-face rules it should be mostly harmless,
>but I would be concerned about shipping an editor that allows
>it in regular style rules.

Since font-feature-settings is what browsers support today - specifically
they have limited or not advanced font-variant* support - it makes sense
for an editor to produce the content that browsers will render. No
different
if you're authoring the CSS by hand, really. 

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 23:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 June 2013 23:26:12 UTC