- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:46:17 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Unfortunately though your spec is non-authoritative, and also wrong. > One proposal I've heard is to use indices inside the fragment identifier We went away from that on the advice of Ken Lunde, who pointed out that when collections are revised the extra fonts are inserted, not allway appended - so numbers as fragment identifiers are fragile. Instead we use the PostScript name (as is already used for local font descriptors). See section 4.4.4 of RFC8081 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8081 The examples in Fonts-3 and Fonts-4 should be updated to the correct syntax. I'm happy to do that. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2205#issuecomment-359070090 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 19 January 2018 19:46:21 UTC