Re: font features in CSS

Bert Bos wrote:
> Yes, we should choose names that match the style of the other keywords
> in CSS. No need to copy the naming style of OpenType or other font formats.
> Moreover, I don't think it is a requirement that CSS supports all OT
> features. A handful of the more common ones is enough. If a designer
> wants a specific feature of a specific font, he can make a new font (or
> a virtual font) in which that feature is turned on. That's what we have
>  @font-face for.
> We don't provide ways either to replace colors in a JPEG or change a
> circle to a square in an SVG. The designer just makes a new image with a
> new URL. That's a more flexible and modular solution.
> I think we should provide keywords for small caps (already done) and
> oldstyle figures, and maybe one or two more. But if a font has half a
> dozen different ampersands and the designer really wants the fourth
> variant, he should make a font with that glyph. (Or maybe he actually
> meant to use an image?)

I agree with Bert's position here. For a lot of these less common features
(and by common, I mean common to fonts, not just commonly used), the values
and their appropriateness is very font-specific. That says to me that it
should be in the @font-face rule. Triggering alternate glyph set #2 when you
have no guarantee of what font ultimately gets used seems like a good way
to introduce cross-platform problems.


Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 19:15:31 UTC