- From: r12a via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:48:04 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
@kidayasuo there are many possible types of font choices, and it may be worth stepping back a little to consider what constitutes a useful generic font family. I think that a key factor is whether _in basic types of content_ the meaning or structure of the text or its cultural relevance is lost if font fallback substitutes a different font. Currently, we're dealing with a small subset that relate to particularly important distinctions, but there are certainly more typeface styles that could be included in the list at https://github.com/w3c/i18n-discuss/wiki/Generic-font-families. I'm not sure where the dividing line lies between essential typeface styles and nice to have aesthetic font styles, but i'm inclined to think that there is a line somewhere. Another factor is whether we can expect users to have access to one or (preferably) more fonts on their system that can be categorised into one of the generic fonts. (I didn't include some styles in the list at https://github.com/w3c/i18n-discuss/wiki/Generic-font-families because i wasn't sure that there were enough fonts available — the list mostly confines itself to system fonts.) Another factor _at the moment_ is how necessary the generic is — to what extent it would be used or needed at the moment, since we're currently working on getting acceptance for very basic typeface styles. How would you rate the calligraphy, diploma, advertisement, and kai styles you have mentioned? And, by the way, could you provide examples of each? -- GitHub Notification of comment by r12a Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/i18n-discuss/issues/34#issuecomment-2987253980 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2025 08:48:05 UTC