- From: jfkthame via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:12:39 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> One thing I don't see mentioned here is that every new generic font keyword is a breaking change. > > Font family names have never needed to be quoted, which means the parser doesn't have any way to distinguish a generic keyword from a family name. This is indeed an issue that needs to be taken seriously, I think. The addition of `fangsong` was already such a breaking change, given that there may very well be a font family named "FangSong" (e.g. on [Windows](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/font-list/fangsong)). (An author could previously have written `font-family: fangsong, fallbackFontName` in the expectation that on Windows, where the font "FangSong" is installed, it would be used, and on another platform the fallback would be used; but once `fangsong` is recognized as a generic, the behavior changes depending on what mapping the UA provides for the generic name.) Maybe any new generics should be handled via some other syntax, such as `font-family: generic(<name>)`, to minimize the risk of disrupting legacy content. It would then be possible to extend the set of supported generic `<name>`s without conflicting with actual font names. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jfkthame Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4910#issuecomment-621109237 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2020 10:12:41 UTC