[Bug 15821] The text about the scoped attribute and @font-face makes no sense

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15821

L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dbaron@dbaron.org

--- Comment #1 from L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> 2012-02-01 00:03:37 UTC ---
To add a bit more detail here, I'm referring to the text:

  For scoped CSS resources, the effect of other @-rules must be scoped
  to the scoped sheet and its subresources, even if the @-rule in
  question would ordinarily apply to all style sheets that affect the
  Document. Any '@page' rules in scoped CSS resources must be ignored.

    For example, an '@font-face' rule defined in a scoped style sheet
    would only define the font for the purposes of font rules in the
    scoped section; style sheets outside the scoped section using the
    same font name would not end up using that embedded font.

This seems to be based on a significant misunderstanding of what @font-face
rules do.  What they do is add to the set of available fonts.  It may well make
sense to scope them to a document tree, but it makes no sense to scope them to
a set of rules.  For example, if the computed value of 'font-family' comes from
one of the scoped rules and the computed value of 'font-style' comes from
outside that set, and the scoped set defines an italic in the given family, is
that considered "for the purposes of font rules in the scoped section"?  This
text essentially:
 (a) requires that the computed value of all font properties that affect font
selection change from their current structure to the pair of that structure
with a list of all active @font-face rules, and
 (b) doesn't provide a conflict resolution algorithm for when those lists of
@font-face rules differ

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 00:04:05 UTC