- From: Myles C. Maxfield via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:16:27 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'm particularly troubled by @astearns's comment in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5421#issuecomment-709425330 about the original edit being premature. Previously, the spec said nothing about the set of exposed fonts. Adding the sentence "User Agents may choose to ignore User-Installed Fonts" didn't actually change anything -user agents were _already_ free to ignore these fonts because nothing was defined before. The edit takes something that was entirely undefined and simply calls out the fact that it was undefined. I wouldn't call this "premature." One valid criticism would be that the original edit doesn't describe the fact that there are many different places in the middle of the spectrum of [forbid all user-installed fonts, allow all user-installed fonts] that UAs can choose, and that these places are (generally) _more_ valuable than either of the extremes. Saying "UAs may pick one extreme" doesn't capture this nuance. Fixing this is an improvement to the spec, and is the resolution the group just agreed on. -- GitHub Notification of comment by litherum Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5421#issuecomment-709434829 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2020 16:16:28 UTC