Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts] generic font families may vs should map to multiple concrete font families (#5053)

The proposed "general purpose" above makes sense to me. For the second category, a few comments:
* Even if the connotations of using a cursive script can be very different from script to script, then notion that there exists a cursive variants seems applicable to most (all?) writing systems. What does classifying it as "script-specific" get us?
* I don't understand the "emoji" font family. Emoji is more of a set of character than a type of fonts. Or is it meant to be used so that those unicode characters that can have either an emoji rendering or a symbol-like rendering get the emoji variant? If that's the case, calling it "script specific" is probably reasonable, but then we'd probably want the alternative too. And it should be made explicit in the spec. And if it's something else, I don't know what.
* putting fantasy in "script-specific" is probably fine. But putting it in "deprecated", with behavior up to the UA (including an allowance to just ignore it) might work too.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5053#issuecomment-864731164 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Monday, 21 June 2021 05:09:15 UTC