- From: Guillaume via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 20:34:10 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
cdoublev has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:
== [css-fonts-4] Clarify basic syntax of descriptors `font-stretch`, `font-style`, `font-weight` ==
I think that there are some issues with the value definitions of `font-stretch`, `font-style`, `font-weight`.
[`font-stretch`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#descdef-font-face-font-stretch) is defined with `auto | <'font-stretch'>{1,2}` and `<'font-stretch'>` expands to `normal | <percentage [0,∞]> | ultra-condensed | extra-condensed | condensed | semi-condensed | semi-expanded | expanded | extra-expanded | ultra-expanded`.
Does that mean that `condensed expanded` is valid?
[`font-style`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#descdef-font-face-font-style) is defined with `auto | normal | italic | oblique [ <angle>{1,2} ]?` and there is a specific rule written in prose for the range allowed for `<angle>`.
I think it can be defined with `auto | normal | italic | oblique [ <angle [−90deg,90deg]>{1,2} ]?`.
[`font-weight`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#descdef-font-face-font-weight) is defined with `auto | <font-weight-absolute>{1,2}` and there is a specific rule written in prose excluding `bolder` and `lighter` in `<font-weight-absolute>`, which expands to `[normal | bold | <number [1,1000]>]`.
The specific rule does not seem required anymore. And does that mean that `200 bold` is valid?
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8085 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2022 20:34:12 UTC