Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> Otherwise, fantasai's alt-set idea seems like an interesting solution >>> to Daggett's objections. >> >> As much as I agree with John's aversion to code clutter, I do think >> that it's better to keep these things tied to specific fonts, one way >> or another. That said, I don't think John's solution would be the end >> of the world. We already have this problem in desktop apps like >> InDesign, which preserve these kinds of font-specific substitutions. I >> don't think it's had a big real-world impact yet. Maybe someday it >> will. > > Still a fundamentally different set of problems, though. If InDesign > preserves the substitutions, it's merely an annoyance when you notice > that the new font you're using has weird substitutions. In CSS, the > weird substitutions will often/nearly always occur in a fallback font > that the author *never sees*, and thus won't have an immediate clue that > there's a problem. Are you thinking of fallback within a given font list or in the system fallback case? What are the "weird substitutions" here, the use of a different font or the use of strange variants? Put another way, in the example below is the "weird substitution" the use of fontB? Or the use of a font chosen by the user-agent when all three fonts in the font list aren't available or don't contain a given character? body { font-family: fontA, fontB, fontC; } Cheers, JohnReceived on Friday, 19 March 2010 07:49:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:44 UTC