Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts] Do generic fonts resolve to a single font face value?

The Working Group just discussed `[css-fonts] Do generic fonts resolve to a single font face value?`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Take Chris's language in  https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1736 into the spec as an example`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-fonts] Do generic fonts resolve to a single font face value?<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1736<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Amelia suggested wording. I modified that based on myles' comments. Seemed generally liked, but myles wanted it not to be an exclusive list. Seems okay to me. dbaron commented recently.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Yeah. I think if we're going to say it's okay to choose a different font for same unicode code point in same lang with same font we should have an idea of why we want to do that.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Yes.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: And user preference didn't seem to be a great desc of the reasons.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: TO me it seemed more likely an impl may want to avoid ransom note effects or to avoid font family switches.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: HOw should we proceed? Text I proposed has been there since Sept 2017. No one has said they didn't like. There were 2 lgtm from Amelia and Myles.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: looks good comments only had the one cavet that they would like it to be "for example"<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: And dbaron are you okay with the existance of this as is or do you want more motivation?<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: If it is flexible I'd rather it not be tied to that list so I guess for example is okay. That makes it more flexible. I don't have strong feelings here. I'm not crazy about flexibility but if is flexible for example is better.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: And it's allowing generic to be made from composites .<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: But that would be allowed without the varients in there. THat's the result of code point.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: I think taking it back to initial comment that does resolve that Latin and Japanese aren't expected to be the same.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: I propose that I put the modified language in the spec and we see if there's anything left ot do.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: sgtm. Obj to putting this parenthetical as a for example into the spec?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Take Chris's language in  https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1736 into the spec as an example<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1736#issuecomment-356672760 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 17:20:17 UTC