- From: litherum via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:50:25 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Here's a list of the current variation fonts issues: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/512 local() and variation fonts 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 <number> 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 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/498#issuecomment-248776128 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 23:50:33 UTC