W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT Lite (Compatibility Web Type) - sample web pages

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:51:48 +0200
Message-ID: <1647810298.20090909145148@w3.org>
To: "Richard Fink" <rfink@readableweb.com>
CC: "'Jonathan Kew'" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, info@ascenderfonts.com, <www-font@w3.org>, "'Sylvain Galineau'" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "'Tal Leming'" <tal@typesupply.com>, "'Erik van Blokland'" <erik@letterror.com>
On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 10:19:17 PM, Richard wrote:

RF> Tuesday, September 08, 2009 Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>:

>>I took a quick look at the "Mayberry" page (sample 3), and I notice  
>>that the "preview" code displayed on the page does not in fact  
>>correspond to the CSS that is actually used for the extended family.  
>>For the latter 4 faces, the CSS actually uses separate family names,  
>>rather than using the true family name and relying on the descriptor  
>>values to identify the proper faces. Is this an oversight, or was it a  
>>hack that turned out to be necessary in order to get the desired  

RF> Quick catch. I'm just getting into the CSS syntactical issues and IE's
RF> behavior in regards to EOTL as opposed to the standards-compliant syntax and
RF> behavior. However, my first impression of the Mayberry Sample 3 page is that
RF> those involved decided to present the CSS for each weight as if that weight
RF> was the only Mayberry font being used on the page.

Yes. In other words, it codes around known IE deficiencies. Which is certainly a valid way to code a page for a wide audience. But the same page can't then be used to check whether IE "appears to work fine".

RF> In that, I think that Ascender's page might be somewhat misleading to those
RF> who would use it as a guide to working with multiple weights of the same
RF> name using EOT in IE, let alone squaring that with what Firefox and other
RF> standards compliant implementations can and will do with the same syntax.

Yes, certainly.

RF> But frankly, font-linking as a practical proposition is so new, I don't know
RF> of anybody who's mastered all the ins and outs.

Um, its not new :)

RF> I'm also under the impression that IE has some issues with numerical weight
RF> properties, period, which might complicate matters. Time to go digging and
RF> get the facts.
RF> Of course, this "differential" between FF's implementation and IE's
RF> @font-face implementation and/or other CSS shortcomings needs to be
RF> thoroughly understood and explained.

Yes, exactly.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 12:52:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC