- From: Jungshik Shin <jshin@i18nl10n.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:29:24 +0900 (KST)
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: public-i18n-geo@w3.org
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Martin Duerst wrote: > At 18:21 03/10/24 +0900, Jungshik Shin wrote: > > >For example, my feedback (and my brother's) on Korean fonts (the one > >given as sans-serif is actually 'serif-like' while the one listed as > >serif is sans-serif) hasn't been acted on. Perhaps, we can make a more I stand corrected. This particular error was corrected in CSS2 erranta : http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/fonts.html#generic-font-families There's still a problem, though. The transliteration used for Korean font name '바탕' 'Phatang' is different from the English font name used in all instances of that font style 'Batang'. That is, the following wouldn't work as intended. <span style="font-family: phatang, serif">.....</span> Perhaps, it'd be better to list native font family names along with English names in such a document. > >comprehensive list by merging Richard's (that probably includes that > >of CSS1), Mozilla's and other source (I'm familar with what fonts are > >shipped by various linux distributions). > > Tex/Junshik - Can we make sure that we can add this to the CSS 2.1 > review? There are also mistakes in the Japanese examples, the > font "Kyokasho ICA" (or anything being named "Kyokasho"), although > having serifs, isn't suitable as a generic serif font because it's > a special style used for schoolbooks, which would look strange > on other material. > > Actually, it looks from http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html > that all this is info is gone. Is that what we want? Indeed, they're gone. What do you think we should do, ask them to add them back to CSS 2.1 or just roll out an FAQ for I18N GEO? Jungshik
Received on Sunday, 26 October 2003 22:29:28 UTC