W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [css3-fonts] font descriptor default values

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:56:23 -0800
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0903030956k531171b5m34edd787b53ae3cf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>> I'm also curious, what field you use to define "family" in this
>> context? (Some platforms/APIs may consider, say, "Arial Black Italic"
>> part of the "Arial" family, and others might consider it part of the
>> "Arial Black" family....)
> What field in the font? That's up to the platform. If the user says:
>    font: italic 12pt Arial Black
> then the font-family is "Arial Black", but if they say:
>    font: 900 italic 12pt Arial
> then the font-family is "Arial", and "Arial Black" may not be chosen if it
> is considered a completely different font-family by the platform.
> I don't consider this a problem, personally, and it hasn't come up as an
> issue thus far. However, I would make a call to the typographers in the
> audience to group related fonts under a single family if possible :)

I beg to differ, it certainly *has* come up as an issue for
application developers. They've assumed that they have to live with
the existing mess.

If the notion of "family" is platform-defined means that CSS font
definitions based on family+style are inherently not cross-platform
for any family more sophisticated than four members, and trying to
deal with such families is likely to lead to frustration. Only because
the available/usable fonts have been so restricted has it not surfaced
as a "real" issue.

Because of this, my conclusion has always been that CSS was
fundamentally broken as far as font selection is concerned.


Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 17:57:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:34 UTC