- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 03:21:36 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Some things to consider here: - Would any user agent expose a different font for `rounded` vs `ui-rounded`? - Would they allow one to be user-customized and not the other? - Are there user agents / platforms that have rounded fonts but not something that fits the definition of a `ui-rounded` font (because it's not used in the user interface and doesn't match the other UI fonts)? When the `ui-*` fonts were introduced, the argument was that there were legacy expectations preventing `serif` and `sans-serfi` from being updated to anything other than Times and Arial/Helvetica. With that perspective, the `ui-*` generics are the “modern” generics, and the other keywords are legacy fallbacks. There is no legacy argument for a `rounded`. But the `ui` prefix implies extra constraints and expectations that might not be appropriate if an author just wants a rounded style for big headings or buttons, without trying to mimic the UI at all. Also, re: >> OS decides to change its typographic conventions > > the same probability that an OS would replace ui-rounded with a slab serif. (That is to say, ~0 probability.) I think you've misinterpreted the concern, @litherum. The complaint against the `ui` fonts is that _if_ their purpose was to mimic the native UI, you could nonetheless end up with a dated design if a future design trend means that rounded fonts are used for headings (instead of sans-serif) and serif fonts for buttons and so on. But that's separate from the question of whether there is any benefit to a non-ui generic. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4605#issuecomment-620969186 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2020 03:21:38 UTC