- From: Adam Twardoch <list.adam@twardoch.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:17:01 +0100
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Michael Jansson <mjan@em2-solutions.com>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
BTW, I just checked the current browser implementations (3.1 versions of Safari and Firefox). This works: @font-face { font-family: "ItaliaMdTT"; src: url("fonts/ItaliaMdTT.ttf") format("truetype"); } BODY { font-family: "ItaliaMdTT" } while this does not work: @font-face { src: url("fonts/ItaliaMdTT.ttf") format("truetype"); } BODY { font-family: "ItaliaMdTT" } I.e. the font-family argument in the @font-face clause seems to be mandatory. In other words, the browsers do not parse any font naming entries in web fonts and completely rely on the stylesheet naming definitions. Which means that we might need a W3C+OpenType "example recommendation" on which naming entries and style-linking flags in OpenType font files should be used by the _web authoring tools_ to automatically generate CSS entries for @font-face, i.e. when the user imports some .ttf or .otf font files into a web authoring application, what CSS properties should be generated so that the CSS font family definitions somewhat correspond to the internal font names. But since it is ultimately the CSS that sets up the frame for the font family relations in web fonts, it would be ultimately up to the web developer to leave it as it is, or to change it as needed (e.g. if he/she prefers to set up a Black style as a style-linked bold, or chooses to mix styles from two completely different families within one CSS font "family"). Or am I missing some essential argument of why it is bad if the "automatic" CSS font selection is not "perfect"? Best, Adam -- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. (Hunter S. Thompson)
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 10:18:25 UTC