- From: Myles C. Maxfield via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:35:49 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The stylistic relationship between the UA environment and the specific values chosen for properties (or variation axes) must be chosen by the designer, not the browser. This is how all responsive design works: media queries or environment-dependent units let authors apply some style with regards to the environment, but that style is supplied by the web author. Font variations are part of the reaction to the environment, not the environment itself. Detecting if variations are supported by the browser is already possible with `@supports`. That being said, there are only a few (4) variation axes which are well-known (and mentioned in the OpenType spec), and each one has a CSS property associated with it. Browsers can't choose good values for your examples of stem widths and serif sizes because browsers have no concept of those axes (because they are not well-known). If a web author wants to adjust stem widths and serif sizes, they must do it themselves with `font-variation-settings` and the existing responsive design mechanisms. If a web author wants to adjust one of the four well-known properties, they can do that too using the existing properties. An example of responsive design working well is with the font-optical-size property, which just accepts two values: `auto` and `none`. This lets the browser select the best optical size from the environment in which the text is shown. However, it doesn't make sense for the other 3 well-known axes to accept values like this: no designer wants the browser to control the weight of the type, or whether or not it is italic. If we add new well-known variation axes, I totally agree that each one should be investigated with responsive design in mind to determine the best way it can be used by authors, browsers, and font creators. I am happy to hear use cases to see if there are any that are not currently solved that are also worth solving. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the title of this issue, "Font variations do not support responsive layout," is false because font variations provide the same support that every other property does. Maybe one day, when we add a new property, we'll do it badly, but for the support that exists in CSS today, responsive designs are supported the same way they're supported anywhere else. Of course, I invite any/all designers to discuss use cases where the current CSS support is insufficient (which we are currently doing in the many other open issues). -- GitHub Notification of comment by litherum Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1054#issuecomment-282096794 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 19:35:57 UTC