- From: Garret Rieger via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 17:38:23 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> The last example implies you need different fonts for when `incremental` is supported or not. But I understand this is based on browser/server tech, and you wouldn't need to repackage your fonts. Is that correct?
The example should be updated to be:
```
@font-face {
font-family: "MyIncrementallyLoadedWebFont";
src: url("FallbackURLForBrowsersWhichDontSupportIncrementalLoading.woff2") format("woff2");
src: url("MyIncrementallyLoadedWebFont.otf") format(opentype supports incremental);
}
```
The fallback to a different font when incremental transfer is not supported is needed so that non-incxfer clients will use the woff2 compressed version of the font for optimal performance. For the range request approach it needs to use the raw uncompressed font in order for the client to be able to grab byte ranges from it.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by garretrieger
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6063#issuecomment-794212749 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2021 17:38:25 UTC