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

Re: [css3-fonts] @font-face font-family names used in other @font-face rules

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:22:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCZ_VkfqC1-EVf-okx1=VB9n=+PC4C1XKpggmJdyEaMkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com> wrote:
> On 5 March 2013 02:34, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I also think you're missing a key point about local(), it refers to a
>> *single* face, not a font family (e.g. "Helvetica", "Helvetica Bold",
>> "Helvetica Italic", etc.).  Whatever you propose you need to sketch it
>> out for a font family, not just a single face.
>
> I realise that. :) I never assumed any changes to the way @font-face
> works, other than to allow composing even without a src property in
> one rule, but where the value of font-family matches. I don't think
> what I'm suggesting would affect fonts vs font families.
>
> The feature request to Google (and all other third-party hosts)
> wouldn't just be to support unicode-range, though, would it? I still
> wouldn't be able to reference one web font when defining another in a
> @font-face rule, so there'd still be no way to override. The only way
> is when my overriding @font-face can have a src value.

What are you wanting to override, besides unicode-range?

Referring back to my earlier emails, you can always "override" a
particular style/weight/stretch/unicode-range for a given font name
with a new font, by just defining a new @font-face with the same
'font-family' descriptor.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 22:22:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT