- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:32:09 -0700
- To: "Chris Lilley" <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>, "Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Chris Lilley wrote:
> Lets suppose I have an unusual font which has the family name of
> 'bold Palatino'. How would I write a declaration that asks for
> normal 14pt/14pt with "Friz Quadrata" as the first family choice,
and
> "bold Palatino" as the second choice
>
> H2 { font: normal 14pt/14pt "Friz Quadrata", "bold Palatino", serif }
>
>
> I have also seen font names with numbers etc in them. I am not sure
that
> your proposed syntax is unambiguous. Particularly for those vendors
who
> (attempt to) silently cope with missing quotes.
How is the problem of missing quotes exacerbated by the relative
position of the commas? Is
H2 { bold Palatino, serif }
any less ambiguous? The size declaration is optional, so in the font
shorthand/property, missing quotes is a firm no-no.
> The idea of grouping font properties into atomic sets ic certainly
> interesting and has also been called for wrt ensuring that runs of
> text in a single language use a consistent font (especially languages
> which are mostly covered by Latin-1 but have a few extra characters).
>
> I'm not sure that this particular syntax will fit the bill, however.
> Feel free to dissuade me with counter examples, of course.
This is a simple solution useful in simple situations, syntactically no
less intuitive than the shorthand, yet functionally a superset. Or,
more simply, all gain, no pain.
I have yet to see a negative example as I don't think the above
qualifies.
David Perrell
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 1997 18:40:48 UTC