Re: [css-fonts-3] i18n-ISSUE-294: Fonts available on platforms

--On Friday, September 13, 2013 19:25 +0200 Chris Lilley
<> wrote:

>> I think we need to be very careful about what we assume in
>> this area and what we say about what we assume.
> Agreed in general. But what you seems to be saying, and what I
> am saying, is that making assumptions about locally installed
> fonts is a poor design decision (although web developers have
> been doing it for years - "Verdana is everywhere" etc.

Yes, exactly.   And even "some font that has glyphs for Lower
Slobbovian, or at least Cyrillic and Chinese, is available

> And bringing this back to the specification in question, what
> it is I believe trying to say in context is "Don't do that.
> Provide a downloadable font instead of making (invalid)
> assumptions about what is commonly available".

With the understanding that my thinking about these things is
sometimes distorted by sensitivity to both embedded,
resource-constrained environments and ones in which the "normal"
way to display characters involves a printf-like function that
makes it hard for the application to know exactly what
fonts/glyphs are actually available on the local platform,
"provide a downloadable font" may not be a useful solution
either because "can download and use it" may be a different type
of invalid assumption.  It is certainly better than invalid
assumptions about what is available, but I think the document
should exhibit more caution in either case.

> [quote]
>   This allows authors to select a font that closely matches
> the design   goals for a given page rather than limiting the
> font choice to a set   of fonts available on all platforms.
> [/quote]
> maybe something like "believed to be available on most
> platforms" would make the point better.

Yes, I think that would be an improvement, even though it leaves
"believed by whom" and whether or not the belief is accurate
questions open.


Received on Sunday, 15 September 2013 21:02:26 UTC