- From: Xiaocheng Hu via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:07:32 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Let me add one more dimension to the discussion: is it easy to adopt the new syntax? One of the reasons we proposed @font-face descriptors (`ascent-override` etc) is that, web font services can put all the change parameters in the style sheets they provide, while web authors only need to make minimal changes to adopt (something like changing `font-family: webfont, fallback` to `font-family: webfont, adjusted-fallback`). It seems that we cannot achieve the same using properties? In particular, we need a different set of parameters for each combination of font size, weight, style, etc. So it seems impossible for web font services to provide a complete set of parameters. On the good side, for pages already using JS & inactive classes, it is straightforward to transition to the list syntax (as shown in @jpamental's [comment](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/126#issuecomment-764633904)). So whether the list syntax is easy to adopt really depends on how widely web authors are already tackling the issue with JS & inactive classes (which I don't have any idea...). -- GitHub Notification of comment by xiaochengh Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/126#issuecomment-764905177 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2021 20:07:34 UTC