W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > March 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [meta] [css-fonts] Criteria for adding new generic font families (#4910)

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 02:13:38 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-606356081-1585620816-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Thanks for starting this.

I'm wondering about the second criteria. The categorization of individual font families into generic fonts is done by the browser rather than by the OS itself. You are right that generic font families are only relevant for installed fonts, but from the point of view of the browser, it doesn't matter all that much if the font came bundled with the OS, was installable as an option (whether as part of some OS language pack, via Debian's `apt install`, or some similar mechanism), bundled with some common piece of software (MS Office?), or whether installed manually by the user.

I think I agree that it needs to be commonly available/installed, as browsers (and specs) can't possibly be expected to categorize every font under the sun, but commonly available isn't 100% the same as preinstalled by the OS.

I'm not 100% sure how to capture that though. Maybe keep point 2 as it is, but add something like "An exception may be granted in the case of fonts that do not ship with an operating system but are nonetheless widely installed."

PS: Depending on exactly https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4055 / https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4497 turn out, this may interact/overlap with that.

GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4910#issuecomment-606356081 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2020 02:13:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:02 UTC