- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:36:01 -0800 (PST)
- To: David Berlow <dberlow@fontbureau.com>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
David Berlow wrote: > CSS3 font-weight, OFF OS2.usWeightClass, and weights which are > not a multiple of 100. > > What is it good for now? Absolutely nothing. Can we assume > width is also made useless too by the misinterpretation of 000 > to 999 as ten values? Not quite sure what's motivating this but you're right, CSS currently limits a family to 9 possible weights. The majority of browsers used by folks effectively support just *two*, regular and bold (see Windows, Microsoft). As for the usWeightClass value, that's already been made effectively unusable by past abuse by well-known font vendors to work around synthetic bolding in GDI. The scale effectively no longer matches what's suggested by OpenType spec, fonts on Windows use an intentionally skewed scale with a lower limit of 250. OSX API's base the font weight on (1) the style name (!!!) and (2) on the OS/2 weight if the style name isn't recognized. And those crazy mapping rules change across OS versions (e.g. 10.5 vs. 10.6)!! The DirectWrite API on Windows, or more precisely the WPF font mapping rules, play similar games. But no platform that I know of ships with more than a handful of font families that contain faces outside the typical set of normal/bold/italic combinations. I'm sure more will ship in the future but I doubt we'll see font families with close to nine weights ever ship on a platform by default. For fonts loaded via @font-face rules, authors define what weight/width values are assigned to individual faces, there's no reference to any weight/width data in the font itself, only what is defined in the @font-face rules. So unless an author is using more than 9 weights simultaneously, that's not much of a limitation currently. Please keep in mind that CSS is *not* attempting to define a taxonomy of fonts, this is merely a simple way of matching attributes with specific faces, nothing more, nothing less. If you think there are situations that require a more complicated matching system, please explain what those situations are and why a more complex model is required. Regards, John Daggett cc: www-style
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 07:38:39 UTC