- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:02:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I agree with option 1. > which would be to say that fantasy is in this case the first available font, and that the various measurments discussed above are based on it. That doesn't really say what they'd be, given that it's a conceptual font with no glyphs (and no obvious metrics) in it A very good reason to not pick option 3. My mental model is that the font stack consists of the following items, in order 1. Whatever real font families have been specified 2. Whatever generic family has been specified, if there is one 3. Some sort of unspecified and implementation-specific fallback font, which may be composite, and is going for widest codepoint coverage. Details of this are not exposed in CSS (but the point about **first available font** and metrics makes me wonder 4. Often, and unspecified and implementation-specific last-resort fallback. This may be a special font (like the one with the hex code as the glyph) or just a font with a missing-glyph. Thus, I would not have expected any font(s0 specified after the first generic family to be used. I wouldn't have expected them to cause an error, just that they would not be used. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4442#issuecomment-551170705 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2019 17:02:15 UTC