W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > November 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts] Add a ui-sans-serif keyword to go with ui-serif (#4468)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:52:07 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-550569399-1573087926-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-fonts] Add a ui-sans-serif keyword to go with ui-serif`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: add ui-sans-serif`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;myles> Topic: [css-fonts] Add a ui-sans-serif keyword to go with ui-serif<br>
&lt;myles> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4468<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: With the new ui- font family keywords. Based on the resolution, we had ui-serif, ui-monospace, and ui-rounded keywords. ui-sans-serif wasn't initially added because the system ui fonts of current systems are all sans-serif, so we didn't need a new keyword<br>
&lt;chris> q+<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: Logically there's nothing in system-ui that says it must be sans-serif, and in the future, system-ui might be serif. A more logical system would have ui-sans-serif keyword, so if you care about it, you can specify it explicitly, vs system-ui gives you the default system font regardless of its styling. In most systems these would map to the same font<br>
&lt;myles> chris: I agree it's currently not like that, but it could change in the future<br>
&lt;myles> chris: I agree with this suggestion<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1 to proposal<br>
&lt;myles> chris: We've already clarified that these names can all point to the same thing<br>
&lt;fantasai> myles: Mildly against this just because it's building infrastructure for a computer that doesn't exist<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: I can see the future possibility, we coudl add the additional keyword when it becomes necessary.<br>
&lt;myles> chris: But people will use it in the interim to mean sans-serif will be surprised.<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: I'm not sure people aren't already going to make that assumption regardless of another keyword<br>
&lt;myles> fantasai: But this means they ahve to make that assumption<br>
&lt;myles> chris: It lets authors be more precise<br>
&lt;myles> fantasai: If we don't add this, then they have to make the assumption. If we add this keyword, they don't have to<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: I'm not strongly opposed to adding it<br>
&lt;myles> plinss: I have slippery slope concerns here. It sounds like we're re-inventing things we had in the 90s. &lt;lists many system- prefixed font names like dingbats and swashes><br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: We've already made the agreement on adding a set of stylistic system fonts. Do we acknowledge that system-ui is by default a sans-serif, or do we include a sans-serif in a stylistic set of keywrods<br>
&lt;myles> chris: The people arguing against this are arguing against the keywords in the first place<br>
&lt;myles> plinss: I don't think it should be serif or sans-serif<br>
&lt;myles> chris: Yes, system-ui shouldn't include that. But we've already got ui-serif and ui-monospaced. Those are 2 of the generic font families. I don't think anyone is asking for more<br>
&lt;myles> plinss: People will ask for stylistic, semantic implications, one being used for body text or headings ... again, it seems like it's going to get out of hand. Not a strong objection, I'm just concerned<br>
&lt;myles> chris: I can understand that.<br>
&lt;fantasai> Note, it's ui-monospace not ui-monospaced now<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: I'm not a big fan of ui-serif and ui-monospace, but we have decided to add them, and I'm somewhat convinced by the argument that, since we have ui-serif, we should also have ui-sans-serif to future-proof<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: We shouldn't have ui-serif in the first place. The connotations of what it means will change over time. I don't see how that's getting you anything<br>
&lt;myles> plinss: ui-monospace has a functional difference.<br>
&lt;myles> s/astearns: We shouldn't have/plinss: We shouldn't have/<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: Does anyone want to really object? Or shall we put it in for now?<br>
&lt;myles> &lt;silence><br>
&lt;fantasai> I think given we have ui-serif/ui-rounded/ui-monospace, I think it's important to have ui-sans-serif<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: The proposal is to add ui-sans-serif (as a sibling to ui-serif)<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: Sounds like we're leaning toward it.<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: Objections?<br>
&lt;myles> plinss: I'd like to reconsider ui-serif<br>
&lt;myles> astearns: Oh, certainly, we can re-litigate adding the pair of them, but if we have one, the proposal is we should have the other.<br>
&lt;myles> plinss: I agree.<br>
&lt;myles> chris: Do these set size and style as well?<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR and myles: no<br>
&lt;myles> RESOLVED: add ui-sans-serif<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4468#issuecomment-550569399 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2019 00:52:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:27:05 UTC