- From: Myles C. Maxfield via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:04:57 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@aphillips You make some good points! My original criteria didn’t mention language support or internationalization, and that was somewhat on-purpose. We, the CSSWG, could go two different ways: 1. Add an additional criterion that all new generic font families must be meaningful for many scripts / writing systems, or 2. Don’t add such a criterion, and if a new proposed generic font family is meaningful for a bunch of scripts / writing systems, then that’s cool, but if not, then it’s still fine. Option 1 might unduly restrict the set of new generic font families. I think most of the existing font families we have today would fail this test. Or it might _not_ unduly restrict the set, and we might all live in a world where there are plenty of generic font families and authors can choose any style they want and it all _just works_ in any language. Option 2 might possibly lead to a world where each script has a bunch of distinct generic font families, and people unfamiliar with these scripts will have no idea what any of them mean. This, honestly, might be totally fine! I don’t know. Hopefully someone smarter than me can indicate whether option 1 or 2 is better. So, yeah, I simply just didn’t mention language support or internationalization in this proposal. -- GitHub Notification of comment by litherum Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4910#issuecomment-608217091 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 3 April 2020 04:04:59 UTC