- From: litherum via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:35:06 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
[Migrated](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/498#issuecomment-248222408) on behalf of @nattokirai: 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 litherum Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/521#issuecomment-248773846 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 23:35:12 UTC