- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:48:41 +0200
- To: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-www-style@farside.org.uk>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, 5:32:40 PM, Malcolm wrote: MR> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 03:39:55PM +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: >> The abstract says that CSS 2.1 is for "to structured documents (e.g., >> HTML documents and XML applications)" but then removes items (relative >> to CSS2.0) such as @font-face because they have not been implemented in >> HTML browsers, regardless of whether they have been implemented with XML >> applications. MR> Speaking only for myself, I can't see that CSS 2.1 provides any specific MR> information as to why @font-face was removed, other than the general MR> statement that the specification "consists of all CSS features that are MR> implemented interoperably". MR> Or are you saying that we already have two interoperable XML user agents MR> that support @font-face? I had said that a number of times on that list, with largely unsatisfactory answers. Of course, if CSS2.1 is primarily aimed at (X)HTML browsers then it certainly true that there was only one implementation of font download using @font-face. However, CSS2.1 is not clear on that point, hence some other comments that push for clarity there. If however CSS2.1 is aimed at XML applications as well, as parts of it claim, then yes indeed there are interoperable implementations of font download using @font-face and have been for years. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 01:48:52 UTC