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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts] Specify what generic font family maps to nastaliq (#4397)

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:17:02 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-547350192-1572344221-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I think we should revisit this once we decide on https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4442, as until then it isn't entirely clear what it actually means for a name to be declared a generic font family. That said, it seems to me that the direction we're going in there is to say that the generic font families aren't actually special in terms of behavior with regards to how they match (or not) and how they fallback. In that case, they are just commonly accepted names for generic concepts, and nothing bad or unusual happens if a browser fails to support some of them (since authors can just supply fallbacks, whether other generic families, or named local fonts, or web fonts).

If that's the case, I think we should start a separate document, outside of css-fonts, maintained as a registry rather than as a spec, where we list a larger set of generic font families than had been accepted so far, without requiring browsers to implement the whole set. I'd expect aditions to the list to be mainly diven by i18n needs, and it could list things like `fangsong`, `nastaliq`, `Ruq'a`, or `Mool`, but could also have things like `humanist` or `fraktur`, or `system-ui-*`, or be a honorable retirement place for `fantasy`. I don't suggest listing everything we can think of there, as there would be no end to that list, but we could list any generic name actually implemented by a User Agents.

This would:
- allow UAs to support new generic family names for which they see meaningful demand (without being accused of making proprietary extensions)
- let UAs that don't agree on the need for that family to keep ignoring it (without being accused of violating the spec)
- help UAs to coordinate with each-other on the naming and meaning of new values when they do agree there's a need
- give authors a centralized place to discover these values and their meanings.

GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4397#issuecomment-547350192 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2019 10:17:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:55 UTC