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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-4] font-stretch is unfortunately named

From: Nick Sherman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:50:04 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-283398015-1488387001-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

> Every browser other than WebKit has already shipped font-stretch, so
 it isn't going away (and I'm currently in the middle of implementing 
it in WebKit).

These implementations are _very_ new though, correct? And as 
@thundernixon mentioned, your implementation in WebKit would 
immediately address a large percentage of browser coverage when it 
goes out.

> it's been widely implemented, and is already in use on the web

Do you have any reference or stats on this? I would be very surprised 
if there were any more than a few dozen websites in existence that 
make use of the `font-stretch` property. And any of them that have 
made use of that property surely understand that it is not a reliable 
thing without WebKit support.

> Yes, aliasing has been proposed, and shown to be ineffective

The argument that aliasing didn’t work in other different situations 
(situations that may have been further along in implementation and 
time beforehand) seems to be a very broad generalization of the 
potential effectiveness of such an idea. Is there any harm in 
deploying an alias as @svgeesus, @jpamental, and the earlier version 
of yourself suggested?

GitHub Notification of comment by nicksherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2017 16:50:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:09 UTC