W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > September 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css4-fonts] support for OpenType font variations

From: litherum via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:50:25 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-248776128-1474501822-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Here's a list of the current variation fonts issues:

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/512 local() and variation 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/513 include WOFF 2.0 in 
font format (src descriptor) strings
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/514 font matching algorithm
 should not favor italic as a fallback for oblique
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/515 "font" shorthand must 
be updated to incorporate new variation font values
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/516 Consider renaming 
"variation fonts" with "variable fonts"
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/517 Applying a variation 
should actually clamp the applied value to the range the font supports
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/518 Fonts may have their 
own internal mapping of keyword names to values
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/519 Italic & Oblique may 
benefit from not including a &lt;number&gt;
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/520 Supported variation 
font axes and font features are not discoverable
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/521 @font-face descriptors 
should accept ranges
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/522 Variation fonts deserve
 their own @-rules

Please let me know if I did not accurately/appropriately migrate these
 issues, and we can fix it.

GitHub Notification of comment by litherum
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 23:50:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:03 UTC