- From: Todd <fahrner@pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 19:27:19 -0700
- To: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak), fahrner@pobox.com
- Cc: davidp@earthlink.net, www-style@w3.org
Jon Bosak wrote >| > I can see an advantage in allowing *any* common weight specifier. The >| > UA simply keeps two heirarchical lists of all the common weight names >| > with corresponding pointers. For example, the 'boldness' heirarchy >| > might include, successively, 'nord, ultra-black, black, ultra-heavy, >| > ultra-bold, super, heavy, extra-bold, bold, demi-bold, semi-bold, >| > demi, medium, book, roman, regular, normal.' If someone specifies > >Does anyone care that there is already an ISO standard for font >characteristics that addresses all of this? Would that be ISO 9541-3-1993-06-01? I can't see it now cause the DNS is down. I suspect CSS does not refer to it because, like other ISO standards, it's normative in intent, rather than descriptive of actual usage. Wouldn't that make it less than useful in this context? I thought CSS implied an acknowledgment that few people will commit to long-term normative enterprises (exemplified by DSSSL) when a little creative opportunism can deliver the goods today. Sort of. Todd Fahrner http://www.verso.com/ fahrner@pobox.com
Received on Saturday, 10 August 1996 22:29:33 UTC