- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:39:13 +0100
- To: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Erik van der Poel wrote: > > User agents are encouraged to allow users to select > > alternative choices for the generic fonts. > > However, the 2nd paragraph of CSS2's section 15.2.6 says: > > All five generic font families are defined to exist in all CSS > implementations > > What happens if the document author's style sheet specifies some > non-existent font for one of the generic fonts? I woiuld suggest detecting this at the time the user selects the font, if this happensd in a UI. However, I would also regard any user-specified generic fonts as an addition to a list, rather than as a replacement. If you don't find the required glyph in all the fonts in a list - including the generic font, if specified - then you fall off the end and can use any font you want. So, in the situatuon where the font for 'serif' used to be "foo" but is now "bar", I don't see a problem with searching "foo" if youalready searched "bar" and are about to fall off the end of the list. > Should the > implementation then look at the user's style sheet? Or should we ignore > @font-face rules for generic fonts in author style sheets to begin with? Certainly the intention was to provide this facility for user and ua-default stylesheets. But the flipside of the CSS reader/author balance is that it is difficult to prevent authors using this too. > > (Thanks for your patience. I hope this is the right mailing list for > these questions!) Yes, it is, although since you are an employee of a W3C Member you can also ask the folks in the CSS WG directly if you want. -- Chris
Received on Saturday, 20 November 1999 16:39:19 UTC