RE: FW: Font-family specification
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: FW: Font-family specification
From: "Chris Wilson (PSD)" <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 12:27:51 -0800
Encoding: 30 TEXT
From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Jan 26 15: 38:11 1996
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.22.611
X-Received: from xmtp4 by xnet2 with receive; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 12:27:56 -0800
X-Received: from RED-03-IMC by xmtp4 with recvsmtp; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 12:27:51 -0800
scott preece wrote:
>My own inclination would be to require quotes for any names that include
>whitespace. I guess I wouldn't be adamant, though, because this list is
>disjunctive rather than conjunctive, making it at least a little like
>the list of selectors, as opposed to a set of values. So, I wouldn't
>object to comma separation, but I would like the standard to use only
>quoted strings in examples.
Absolutely - the examples should be clear in this manner. I believe the
HTML credo is "be strict in what you produce, and liberal in what you
accept" (or some such), and that was the spirit of my suggestion. I don't
believe there is a very compelling reason to require quoting, but it
certainly makes the most sense.
>b/t/w - I believe the current grammar would not support the suggestion - I
>think it requires quoting.
To handle whitespace? The draft says "..., and spaces in font family names
are replaced with dashes." This makes me as an implementor believe that
spaces are only allowed when they are translated to dashes, quoted or not
(i.e., even quoted spaces would be translated to dashes). The examples do
not quote, either, which makes me not think about using quotes to protect
spaces within individual family names.