- From: Guillaume via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:31:08 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Thanks for the [change](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/a951f1f2e69e6945c6d44e7eca5809a3e15a8485) Chris. Do you think this can be applied to [`<font-tech>` in CSS Conditional 5](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-5/#typedef-font-tech) as well? `w3c/reffy` also extracts the definition from [CSS Fonts 4](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-tech-values) and [5](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-5/#font-tech-values). Ideally, there should be only one definition. Its users have to know which spec has authority, which happens to be non-trivial in this case. CSS Conditional 5 also have its own definition of `<font-format>` and a note saying that `<font-format>` and `<font-tech>` should be imported from CSS Fonts. But in `@supports` it actually excludes `<string>` (cf. https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8110#issuecomment-1330516749), therefore some may think that `incremental` matches `<font-tech>` but not `incremental-*` in `@supports`, and vice-versa in `src`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by cdoublev Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7665#issuecomment-1522859041 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2023 06:31:10 UTC