- From: jfkthame via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:17:50 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Agreed; by a literal reading of the definition it seems there's no way for a directly-referenced font to satisfy it, which I'm sure was never the intended outcome. The spec is also clear ([see the **Note**](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-4/#first-available-font)) that being considered the "first available font" is *not* dependent on actually having a glyph for the space character. So the font's *character map* (or its *effective character map*, in the case of a `@font-face` resource) is *not* taken into consideration. Only the `unicode-range` descriptor can disqualify a potential candidate. My conclusion is that any font mentioned directly in the `font-family` list is a valid candidate for "first available font", without regard to its actual character repertoire, much like a `@font-face` resource with no `unicode-range` (because the initial value of the descriptor is the complete range of Unicode). So you're right, the text of the spec should be clarified; but I don't think it should be changed to refer to character map. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jfkthame Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4796#issuecomment-1303827149 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 4 November 2022 16:17:51 UTC