- From: r12a via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:36:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Let me repeat my opinion here, I don't think it is a good idea to specify nastaliq or fraktur as new font family. They are specific ways to write their script with different regional preference on their usage, unlike regular font fanily which is supposed to be accessible to everyone who use the script. They have also been identified as different scripts in the ISO 15924 standard, and thus it is already possible to specify displaying content in these different writing variants through script subtag in language tagging, or user custom locale selection. Well, yes, it's possible, and lacking other alternatives i have myself resorted to that tactic. But it's not ideal. (a) If you want to change the styling of your document(s) from, say, serif to nastaliq you would probably have to change the markup in all the files using the style sheet rather than just adjust the font-family in the style sheet itself. (b) I'm not confident that people writing documents using nastaliq or other styles would appreciate, or even know to, add the script tag everywhere they use a lang attribute. I certainly don't when writing documents that use the same style throughout for Kashmiri, Hausa, etc. (c) Script subtags don't exist for all the styles that are likely to be needed, such as Mool style in Khmer, or Kano style in African ajami, etc. We'd need to talk with the ISO folks about whether such an approach is something they'd support. > Another thing to consider is that, when there are enough font for e.g. Nastaliq on the market, undoubtedly fontmakers will also start making those fonts in different looks and the different among themselves will more closely resemble the difference between traditional font families in css. If nastaliq is to be specified and used as a font family then it would not be possible to specify those different font variants through font family unless additional font families are to be created for such different combinations. I'm not sure i agree with you there. These styles we're talking about are generally quite a high level concept, even though the style list may vary from language to language. Serif and sans-serif Latin script fonts have wide variations. Nastaliq already has fonts that vary (eg. Urdu vs Persian). But the point here it seems to me is that the system would choose one font that you have on your platform to fall back to, and if you're an Urdu user it's likely to be an Urdu font, and if you're Persian a Persian one, then at least that font would maintain the appropriate style. Which brings me to a suggestion: Browsers currently allow you to specify preferred fonts for particular languages. Why not simply build into the preferences for a browser a list of generic styles and allow users to specify which font they'd like to associate them with. This gives much more power to the user, and makes it much less difficult for the implementer to deal with larger lists of styles+fonts. -- GitHub Notification of comment by r12a Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4397#issuecomment-591521002 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 16:36:23 UTC