Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-4] @font-family src: should accept a specifier which lists font requirements

>  I would rather see a new `features()` string in the stylesheet

That definitely looks nicer to read. And my main comment was about re-using OpenType table names, anyway, the rest was mostly musings.

One limitation, though: by adding a separate `features` parameter, instead of overloading `format()`, wouldn't we break the syntax for existing browsers?  So you'd actually need to write (for the near-future, anyway):

@font-face {
  font-family: heading-font;
          /* fallback stack for browsers that don't know features() */
  src: url(fallback-font.woff2) format("woff2"), 
        url(fallback-fallback-font.woff) format("woff"),
        url(how-old-is-your-browser-font.ttf) format("ttf");
  src: url(fancy-font.woff2) format("woff2") features("CPAL,FVAR"),
           /* fallback for browsers that understand features(), but don't support these features */
        url(fallback-font.woff2) format("woff2"); /* assume woff2 support in this case */

Which is sub-optimal, but no worse than oodles of other similar fallback redundancies in modern stylesheets.

GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 30 October 2017 20:34:14 UTC