Re: CSS & Fonts

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 7:45 AM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> > 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;
> > }
>
> Just curious, what's the problem here you're trying to solve?  Varying
> size based on the font I can see as desirable, not sure I see the use
> case for specifying bold or normal per font.  Have you played with
> font-size-adjust, implemented currently in FF 3.0?

Given that weights can vary by more subtle differences than regular vs
bold, that would be reasonable in theory. Mind you, more subtle weight
differences are generally unavailable in the system fonts one might
expect to see spec'd in such a CSS declaration.

> > 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.
>
> I'm with Vladimir on this, having an author controlled attribute for
> this is a bad idea.  These preferences are very user-dependent and
> hardware dependent, the level of subpixel aliasing varies across display
> types.  What might seem nice to a Mac OS user is not necessarily what a
> ClearType user wants to see and vice versa.  After all, it's the users,
> not authors, who are reading the text.

Just so. As a "font guy," I'm completely in agreement with you and Vlad on this.

Cheers,

T

--
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
- Sir Winston Churchill

Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 15:07:50 UTC