- From: Koji Ishii via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:18:45 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
kojiishi has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:
== [css-fonts] Should all new generic family names win over @font-face names? ==
According to:
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#family-name-syntax
The unquoted generic font-family names should not match @font-face nor existing font names.
As we add more generic families, and we changed the definition not to require to resolve to existing fonts, I wonder we may want to revisit this criteria too.
As the number of generic family increases, we'll increase the risk of snippets like this to behave differently by browsers:
```css
@font-face { family-name: fangsong; ... }
html { font-family: fangsong; }
```
then browsers that supports `fangsong` generic family will ignore this `@font-face`.
In Blink, we apply this rule to `system-ui`, but haven't done so to other generic families yet.
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5001 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 24 April 2020 05:18:48 UTC