- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: Paul Nelson <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
Hi Erik! > Once a webfont has been installed for use in a UA I don't see > why it would have to be limited to the webpage that included the @font-face. > I'm for example thinking of the case where all the systemfonts didn't > contain glyphs for some particular range, while a webfont happened > to do so. I think in such a situation it would be better to show some > text using the webfont rather than to show missing glyphs (usually > hollow rects) or even no text at all. I understand the reasoning here, showing *something* is better than missing glyph boxes or question marks but in this case allowing a downloaded webfont to be used in the system font fallback process would lead to rather odd behavior, the page rendering would effectively become a function of the browsing history. Say a user visits the BBC Bengali site which includes a downloaded web font. The user then browses to another Bengali site which renders correctly because of the font downloaded from the BBC site. But several days later, after the font has been cleared from the cache, if the user now visits that second site again missing glyphs appear instead. Makes for a rather inconsistent user experience. Regards, John Daggett Mozilla Japan
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:57:11 UTC