Bert Bos wrote: > > Yes, we should choose names that match the style of the other keywords > in CSS. No need to copy the naming style of OpenType or other font formats. > > Moreover, I don't think it is a requirement that CSS supports all OT > features. A handful of the more common ones is enough. If a designer > wants a specific feature of a specific font, he can make a new font (or > a virtual font) in which that feature is turned on. That's what we have > @font-face for. > > We don't provide ways either to replace colors in a JPEG or change a > circle to a square in an SVG. The designer just makes a new image with a > new URL. That's a more flexible and modular solution. > > I think we should provide keywords for small caps (already done) and > oldstyle figures, and maybe one or two more. But if a font has half a > dozen different ampersands and the designer really wants the fourth > variant, he should make a font with that glyph. (Or maybe he actually > meant to use an image?) I agree with Bert's position here. For a lot of these less common features (and by common, I mean common to fonts, not just commonly used), the values and their appropriateness is very font-specific. That says to me that it should be in the @font-face rule. Triggering alternate glyph set #2 when you have no guarantee of what font ultimately gets used seems like a good way to introduce cross-platform problems. ~fantasaiReceived on Friday, 30 October 2009 19:15:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:40 UTC