- From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:04:01 +0100
- To: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
- Cc: rfink@readableweb.com, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 17:04:36 UTC
Hi, Given text ui browsers or other cut-down browsers for embedded platforms - wikibook? :) - and other specialists, 'fail to load' seems very odd to me. If the html document comes down the line, but linked resources dont , that doesn't seem a loading failure to me...? Happy to be wrong on this... Regards, Dave On 14 Oct 2009, 3:57 PM, "Laurence Penney" <lorp@lorp.org> wrote: On 14 Oct 2009, at 15:02, Richard Fink wrote: > > There's a lot of gray area. Plus, there is a clear... 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 17:04:36 UTC