- From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:05:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> `optional` is intended to prioritize the user experience (no layout jumping) over the authoring design intent (pretty fonts). I'm not convinced this design does a good job of that. There are other aspects of user experience that are also relevant here: for example, I think users would be bothered by having bold and/or italic text in a fallback font when the primary text was in the downloaded font. (There might also be problems with accented characters for, e.g., Latin-script locales that use characters outside of Latin1, depending on how fonts are typically chunked for download.) > I'd love to be able to give web devs the advice "apply font-display:optional and this won't be a problem", but today we can't do that. I think this might be plausible "won't be a problem" advice for pages that use only a single font face (no weight variation, no italic/oblique variation) and only use ASCII characters (or perhaps a slightly broader Latin set depending on how the fonts they use are provided). But I think anything more advanced, which is a *lot* of the Web, is going to involve *tradeoffs* here. (And remember that a bunch of the existing design of downloadable fonts is about trying not to download a ton more fonts than needed, given the reality of multiple weights, multiple styles, and large character ranges.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4108#issuecomment-573440894 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 12 January 2020 18:05:16 UTC