On Jul 30, 8:09pm, Paul Prescod wrote:
> The Web fonts spec looks very complete. Good work!
Thanks. A lot of people have put in work over the last year to create
this spec; the problem is not as easy to solve as it appears at first
glance. We have also tried to take the needs of Internationaliation
into account from the start, while not disallowing some of the typographical
niceties that only apply to Latin typography.
> I wonder, though, if it has to be so explicitly tied to CSS.
It isn't. That is why there is a substantial chapter describing font
characteristics, independent of CSS or of style sheets. The chapter on
CSS font descriptors then reduces to naming the descriptor, giving it's
initial value, and giving a link to the description of what it actually
The same descriptive approach could be used to characterise fonts for
Java, for VRML, etc - as noted in the specification.
> If XML's
> stylesheet language is not CSS, or if another stylesheet language is
> developed for HTML, then the WebFonts work would presumably be not
> Right now the syntax and semantics are inextricably tied.
> much so that strictly speaking this standard would have to be updated
> when CSS2 comes out, or incorporated into it:
> "This specification extends the font mechanisms in CSS1..."
Which it does. It extends rather than replaces or sits alongside as an
> I think that it would be possible to define descriptors and algorithms
> with a variable syntax and present a *sample syntax* that happens to be
> CSS for pedagogic purposes.
That is pretty much what the spec does. I encorage you to re-read it.
I don't see any problem incorporating this work into DSSSl, for example,
based on recent discussions with well informed parties.
Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ]
Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C
email@example.com 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
- From: Paul Prescod <firstname.lastname@example.org>