- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 07:47:12 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
frivoal has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-fonts] generic font families may vs should map to multiple concrete font families == This issue is partly relevant for existing generic font families, but I think gets more pressing if we decide we're going to add more. [css-fonts-4](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#generic-font-families) says: > However, a single generic font family may be a composite face combining different typefaces based on such things as the Unicode range of the character … I like that this is a possibility, but I think in some cases it ought to stronger than a "may", and probably a "should", for generic font families that are meant to be international. For instance, it doesn't seem particularly important that fangsong, or a possible other language / script specific additions like nastaliq. However, for generic font families that are meaningful across multiple scripts (sans serif, rounded…), then I think it *should* be a composite face trying to cover a broad range of Unicode. It feels like be able to make that distinction, we'd have to classify generics into "general-purpose generics" and "script-specific generics". That doesn't seem particularly hard at the moment, but with a bigger set, we might get into gray areas. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5053 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 8 May 2020 07:47:14 UTC