- 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
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