- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:35:54 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
This is the CSS WG's response to an issue you raised on the last CSS 2.1 draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915). We want to publish CSS 2.1 as a CR in about two weeks. Please let us know this week if you think our response is wrong. Your e-mail: http://www.w3.org/mid/170A2352-0259-11D8-9167-003065B8CF0E@iki.fi 15.2 Font matching algorithm I think the specification is too detailed here. When the page isn't displayed with the font the author primarily wanted, do this specifics of the font matching really matter? For example, on Mac OS X ATSUI already implements a font matching algorithm which could be considered good enough. Having to implement another matching algorithm on the application level is a performance problem. Consideration implementation difficulty, performance and the user experience, I think passing the list of font alternatives to the system Unicode imaging service and letting the system apply its fallback algorithm would be quite sufficient when the system offers font list-based fallback functionality. Also, considering user experience, allowing (but not requiring) the user agent to make decisions based on the content of the entire page is likely to be better than doing per character font selection. CSS WG response: No change. For the CSS WG, Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos/ W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 16:36:14 UTC