- From: Sergey Malkin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:18:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Is the main complaint here is that UA doesn't support color fonts or color font is supported, but lack non-color fallback glyphs? There are several reasons, besides UA not supporting color fonts, why having fallback glyphs in color font is important: - Canvas or SVG may need to extract glyph geometry for fill/stroke/clip operations. - Text shadow is rendered as solid color without colors. - You can have b/w printer where colors are disabled. In this case I don't want to change layout based on printer model, so font should be the same. Although, we can use color glyphs rendered in greyscale, as images. This is not about UA support for color fonts, but functionality that _requires_ fallback glyph to be present. If one of those is used on your page, you better have font that has fallback glyphs. If it is not, why do you care about fallback glyphs? #633 talks about @font-face functionality that allow UA download fonts with format that it supports. Whatever font is downloaded from list of urls in src descriptor, should have same or similar layout characteristics. If color formats is supported as part of formats() filter, we are getting font that works in your UA automatically. -- GitHub Notification of comment by SergeyMalkin Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2540#issuecomment-380529877 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2018 17:19:01 UTC