- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:30:01 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
svgeesus has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-fonts-5] How to add new generic font families == We agreed on the 27 Oct 2021 call to start a new issue about how to add generic font families. Below is my understanding of the current direction, as a way to start discussion. There are two ways to go with the future evolution of generics: 1. Deprecate a couple, don't add any more, depend totally on downloaded webfonts 2. Realize that, as @r12a demonstrated, [a large number need to be added](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4910#issuecomment-619342561), come up with criteria for adding them and a plan, perhaps a registry for trying out new ones, and recognize that these represent _important distinctions_ which are necessary for some languages or scripts and may not be useful, or indeed map to an actual font, outside that usage. It seems we have broad agreement that option 2 is the way to go. This implies that new generics will be steadily added over time, which gives us a potential name-clash problem. @frivoal suggested a `generic()` functional notation which would neatly solve that issue. We should avoid being over-specific, as @fantasai mentioned, but also avoid being over-general or drawing forced analogies that do not take into account cultural factors (for example saying that `cursive` means brush drawn and also playful or informal, when it may mean the exact opposite, like "official and somewhat archaic government pronouncements"). And as @litherum noted, it is easier to discuss specific families rather than being too meta, once we have a general direction agreed upon. **In Scope** Finding the existing generic categories that particular communities need, and for each one document - the name - a description of what it signifies and how it is used - at minimum ,one font which would be appropriate for that generic. More is better. - the languages or scripts which are the _primary_ audience for this generic. Retrospectively applying that procedure to existing and already-proposed generics Deprecating `fantasy` **Out of Scope** User-defined generics (how would content authors discover and use them) Creating the latest and best completely universal type classification system which can accurately and uncontroversially classify any typeface ever created to an astonishing level of detail, which everyone agrees is the right one (This spun out from [meta] [css-fonts] Criteria for generic font families #4910 ) Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6770 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2021 17:30:03 UTC