- From: jfkthame via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:38:41 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'm unconvinced that adding more CSS "generic" font-family names is a good path forward. The set of possible "generic" names for certain classes of design is pretty open-ended (not to mention highly dependent on writing system), and requests will likely be driven as much by the winds of design fashion as by any principled model or taxonomy of fonts. (As for the justification that this parallels `ui-rounded`: ISTM even the `ui-*` names are a bit problematic, as they may not actually achieve what authors want. Suppose I design a page to match current macOS UI conventions by using `ui-serif`, `ui-rounded`, etc on appropriate elements. But then a future revision of the OS decides to change its typographic conventions so that the elements that in Catalina were using a rounded font now appear in a slab serif instead: my page suddenly becomes a misfit. System UI conventions have changed in the past, and it seems highly likely they will change in the future. For an author who wants to match the system UI design, it seems like the old system font keywords (`caption`, `icon`, etc) would be a more reliable approach than directly calling for `ui-rounded`, `ui-serif`, etc.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by jfkthame Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4605#issuecomment-617697658 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2020 10:38:42 UTC