- From: jfkthame via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:29:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
CSS offers a three-way distinction: `font-style: normal | italic | oblique`. The usual convention (and author practice) for emphasis (or other purposes) is to use italic, and there is a well-established practice in software to use a "fake italic" (i.e. artificially obliqued face) to satisfy a request for "italic" style when no true italic is available. The distinctive case is where an author explicitly requests oblique _rather than_ italic. We can assume this is usually a conscious decision by an author, given that tools and common practice all tend towards the italic choice. Indeed, an author who requests oblique may well be wanting to make a _distinction_ between italic and oblique. To use the italic face to fulfill the oblique request will erase this distinction, whereas using an artificially-slanted version of the normal face will maintain it. In addition, while algorithmically generated "styled" faces (e.g. for bold, condensed, or extended) are generally inferior to crafted designs, oblique is one style for which this is less of a concern. A typical upright "normal" face can be algorithmically slanted by a moderate amount with little harm to the design. Therefore, I still believe that `font-style: oblique` should _not_ fall back to using an italic face, but should _in preference_ use the regular face and synthetically slant it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jfkthame Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/514#issuecomment-335582104 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 19:29:41 UTC