Re: alternate font properties
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Liam Quinn" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: alternate font properties
From: "David Perrell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:06:20 -0700
From email@example.com Tue Jul 29 21: 06:50 1997
X-Authentication-Warning: www10.w3.org: Host italy-c.it.earthlink.net [220.127.116.11] claimed to be italy.it.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
Liam Quinn wrote:
> Um, without a property name, no :)
Well, a good browser should be able to understand what I mean. :)
> >The size declaration is optional
> No, it's not. There is no ? after <font-size> at
Ah, so there isn't. Well, then, I guess this 'new, improved font'
really can't be compatible with the current 'font'. Each family name
would have to be prefaced with a font-size.
> It's better form to use quotes, but browsers should be able to handle
> otherwise, assuming that the font-size is properly given. The spec
> that "Font names containing whitespace should be quoted" , but it
> doesn't say that they must be.
So, as usual, it's "some pain, some gain", and my evidence was
specious. So now I'm thinking a such a change to 'font' is not a good