- From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:53:44 +0100
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
My point was about web documents for which the fonts were essential, rather than a style choice - this will be a new experience for publishers. If a map required characters such as U+F421 (PUA) from a symbol font, then without that font you get lots of missing character glyphs instead. For fonts containing minority language characters, you get missing glyphs on text using those characters. JavaScript in the document itself is probably the way to verify loading of absolutely essential items, though. - L On 14 Oct 2009, at 18:04, Dave Crossland wrote: > 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 17:54:14 UTC