- From: Mike Bremford via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:06:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
CJK fonts are not my area of expertise - I don't have a strong position on these two. I know their size makes them an awkward download, "Fangsong" has already been added, and I understand there was some history behind both "FangSong" and "Kaiti" as generic families - enough to make them an exception. I'm very happy to be corrected on this. If the aim is to be consistent - adding "fangsong" or "nastaliq" just because we added "serif" - then we're going to be adding a lot of them. We've already had the debate of how to style latin text when "fangsong" is the font family, and how to style chinese text when "cursive" is the family. The more generic fonts we add, the harder this gets - how do you style chinese text when "nastaliq" is the font-family? If we want consistent rendering we have to have that discussion. And I think for the vast majority of cases, where people are already embedding fonts as a solution, it's not very useful. The bar @litherum set at the start of this discussion is excellent, but it shouldn't be a minimum criteria to meet. The primary criteria should be "what specific problem is this particular generic font going to solve?". If we can't answer that, we shouldn't add it - or keep it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by faceless2 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4910#issuecomment-618923317 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 24 April 2020 10:06:55 UTC