W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > April 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-4] [varfont] Problem setting up a "4-style family" with variable fonts

From: Myles C. Maxfield via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:19:41 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-298148100-1493443180-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
We are discussing different points here.

**Point 1**
> I want my regular at font-weight 343 and my bold at font-weight 844.

This would require removing the statement that `normal` means `400` and `bold` means `700`, and instead would say that `normal` and `bold` are dependent on something in the `@font-face` block. This would mean that these keywords could have different meanings depending on which value in the `font-face` fallback list is used.

**Point 2**
> I think this is a dupe of #528.

It isn't. Redefining what the keywords mean is very different than using different values for font selection and application.

**Point 3**
> src: url("Gingham-Variable.ttf#wght=343,wdth=130");

This is a terrible idea. We already have `font-weight` and `font-stretch` descriptors in `@font-face` blocks.

**Point 4**

> I think there is a legitimate case to also allow `font-variation-settings` as a descriptor within `@font-face`.

Because of the clamping behavior of the existing descriptors in `@font-face`, it is already possible to apply a variation value with descriptors in an `@font-face` rule. Therefore, it seems reasonable to open it up to all axes and not just weight/width/slope.

GitHub Notification of comment by litherum
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1289#issuecomment-298148100 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 29 April 2017 05:19:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:11 UTC