- From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:56:08 +0100
- To: <rfink@readableweb.com>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On 14 Oct 2009, at 15:02, Richard Fink wrote: > There's a lot of gray area. Plus, there is a clear aesthetic aspect, > which > always creates contention. Some don't mind the visible restyling of > text as > the downloaded font is applied. They say, so what? Some do think it's > distracting and ugly. In this, there is no clear right and wrong, just > different tastes and philosophies. It's not just aesthetics of course. Sometimes a webfont may supply characters that are not in the system fonts, and therefore required for the document to make sense. This could be for language reasons, or for sets of sorts such as map symbols. Do we therefore need a CSS rule that somehow declares that a document should be marked "failed to load", if a vital font could not be accessed? Are fonts inherently any different from images in this respect? - L
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 14:56:43 UTC