- From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:02:32 -0400
- To: "Kevin W." <null@ozforces.com.au>
- Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, W3c I18n Group <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
If it is going to remain in CSS3, I don't see the point in removing it here. If
anything it is confusing to the industry.
With respect to minority scripts, no - the fact that you can read it does not
mean automatically that your computer system comes with support for it. Often,
these languages are not well-supported, and the publishers of sites using such
languages will make resources available or point to them, so their audience can
use their site.
tex
"Kevin W." wrote:
>
> > I am sure there are good reasons for removing @font-face [2]
> > from CSS 2.1 font capabilities. [1].
>
> Probably only because there were no implementations of it at all (AFAIK),
> and it was deemed too much work for not enough gain. Leaving it in the
> spec wouldn't have really encouraged UAs to support it. It's still in
> CSS3 though.
>
> > 1) Do I understand correctly that in losing @font-face there is no
> > longer a way to specify the url for fonts
>
> Well we've never had an implementation of it. If a UA wants to support
> it, they still can, as it's still in the CSS3 spec.
>
> > I have a concern that this impacts users of minority languages more than
> > others.
>
> I imagine if you want/need to read in a minority script, you would already
> have the required font(s).
>
> --
> Kevin W :-)
> Opera/CSS/webdev blog: http://trats.ozforces.com.au/
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com
XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 02:03:06 UTC