- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:34:11 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> 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):
```css
@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 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/633#issuecomment-340575525 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 30 October 2017 20:34:14 UTC