- From: Henrik Hansen <henrikb4@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:10:47 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <dd12cf660903160610l158c421apcfcb3e9ecb058151@mail.gmail.com>
I can see the use case in the first idea. But the implementation needs some work. I don't really have any comments on the second idea. But I'm not supporting it as now since I can't see any good use. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 19:40, Aaron <aaron.cicali@gmail.com> wrote: > Since we're already font-challenged on the web, wouldn't it be great if > we could specify an alternate ruleset if a particular font wasn't > available? > > For instance: > > body { > font: 28px normal georgia, 26px bold times new roman; > } > > In this case we'd be specifying georgia at 28px, but if the user didn't > have that font, instead we'd go with times new roman but in BOLD at 26px. > > While we're at it...how about CSS font anti-aliasing? Instead of allowing > silly little programs like Internet Explorer anti-alias ALL fonts on our > pages > (even little itty bitty ones), shouldn't WE, the DEVELOPERS be the ones > specifying which fonts to anti-alias? I appreciate a good fuzzy edge on > my headings, it just doesn't make sense in other places. > > Thanks for listenin, y'all. > - Aaron > > > -- > Aaron Cicali > http://www.aaroncicali.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Computer Repair and System Builds > Web Design and Development > Wired and Wireless Networking > Digital Photography and Manipulation > Consultation and Training > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > HTML, CSS, JavaScript/AJAX, PHP, MySQL > -- Hilsen Henrik Enggaard Hansen
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 13:11:25 UTC