- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:51:50 +0200
- To: "Kevin W." <null@ozforces.com.au>
- Cc: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, W3c I18n Group <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
On Monday, October 20, 2003, 7:46:09 AM, Kevin wrote: >> I am sure there are good reasons for removing @font-face [2] >> from CSS 2.1 font capabilities. [1]. KW> Probably only because there were no implementations of it at all KW> (AFAIK), Glad you added the AFAIK. KW> and it was deemed too much work for not enough gain. Leaving it in the KW> spec wouldn't have really encouraged UAs to support it. Perhaps it would, perhaps it would not, but taking it our clearly discourages them. KW> It's still in CSS3 though. Big whoop - from Rec to working draft in five years. Thats progress. >> 1) Do I understand correctly that in losing @font-face there is no >> longer a way to specify the url for fonts Yes. KW> Well we've never had an implementation of it. Who is "we"? You missed out the "AFAIK". Given that there are multiple implementations, a bit more research would be a good idea. KW> If a UA wants to support KW> 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. KW> I imagine if you want/need to read in a minority script, you would KW> already have the required font(s). If you are a majority user of that language and as long as you are content with always seeing everything in the same font with no stylistic variation. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 10:54:49 UTC