- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: "CSS WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)" <www-style@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org, Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > Basically, the thinking here was that, since font systems are > > somewhat diverse and fonts themselves use different encoded > > sequences, capitalizations, and other variations, this is a case in > > which both Unicode normalization and Unicode case folding are > > practical and justified. We would therefore recommend that you > > require Unicode NFC normalization and Unicode C+F case folding when > > comparing font names for selection. We think this is a special case > > because it is isolated and should have no side-effects on other > > parts of the Web, such as Selectors. It merely ensures that a given > > style sheet has the greatest likelihood of matching the intended > > font names as represented in the underlying system. > > Are the various font standards silent on this? It might still be good > for CSS to point out how this boundary is crossed though. The OpenType spec is really the one that counts here and it says nothing about how names are matched. In general, name data containing different localizations was intended for UI usage where no string matching is necessary, the user selects a particular font from a menu. Cheers, John
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 05:22:52 UTC