- From: r12a via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:09:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Safari had already implemented this behavior But Safari is only one of the 3 main browser engines, so i don't believe the spec should reflect that approach yet, because it doesn't represent reality. (And btw, i am no longer able to use or recommend Safari for a deal of multilingual content for this reason, esp. when it concerns support for endangered scripts or scripts that people are promoting for wider use. Which is a nuisance, since it writes off use on iPads and iPhones as well as desktop.) (1) above sounds problematic because i don't believe it's possible to create and maintain in a timely fashion a centralised list that will respond to the needs of the content developers, especially for endangered and long-tail scripts. Installing fonts currently avoids that problem, of course. (2) Is a given, to my mind, if any restrictions are to be placed on ability to render user-installed fonts, but it adds complications for non-computer-literate users that it must be easy for them to understand how to work around. However, both of those are solutions to a problem that we don't yet have, since the majority of major browser engines do not restrict visibility of user-installed fonts. So if we are to describe reality, we should remove that sentence. If we are to describe some future possibility, which to my mind is not yet certain enough to include in the spec, then such a statement must be accompanied by another that says that users must be able to work around the restriction when needed. -- GitHub Notification of comment by r12a Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5421#issuecomment-674818055 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 17 August 2020 11:09:16 UTC