- From: John Daggett via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:15:04 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Jonathan Kew has also suggested using ranges in `@font-face` rules:
```css
/* For legacy UAs that don't support variation fonts,
load individual faces. */
@font-face {
font-family: BodyText;
src: url(fonts/BodyText-Regular.otf) format("opentype");
}
@font-face {
font-family: BodyText;
font-weight: bold;
src: url(fonts/BodyText-Bold.otf) format("opentype");
}
@font-face {
font-family: BodyText;
font-style: italic;
src: url(fonts/BodyText-Italic.otf) format("opentype");
}
@font-face {
font-family: BodyText;
font-style: italic;
font-weight: bold;
src: url(fonts/BodyText-BoldItalic.otf) format("opentype");
}
/* For UAs with variation support: the style and weight descriptors
cover a range, which means this will override all the preceding
rules that fall within the ranges. UAs that don't recognize the
"opentype-variation" support will not load anything here, so will
fall back to the individual faces above. */
@font-face {
font-family: BodyText;
font-style: normal, italic;
font-weight: 1-1000;
src: url(fonts/BodyText-Var.otf) format("opentype-variation");
}
```
So `font-stretch` would use a percentage range? `50-150%`? Hmmm.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by nattokirai
Please view or discuss this issue at
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/498#issuecomment-248222408
using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 07:15:15 UTC