W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2010

Re: [css3-fonts] font-specific feature handling

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:17:32 -0700
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1003191617i7f13faecuba6f2f398968cc03@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Richard Fink wrote:
>> I'd rather see blank space than have the UA "fill in" the
>> glyphs with another font that only confuses me as I try to design and
>> debug.)
> [...]
>> Restricting authors in an attempt to save them from their own mistakes
>> doesn't make sense - and if fallback to a keyword font family could be
>> turned off, the chance of an unintended consequence could be reduced to
>> nothing. If that's what the author wants.
> Sorta, maybe... but I think you are pushing the envelope with this suggestion. I don't like the idea of the content just disappearing because the author wants it to appear "just so".
> I think we have made great progress in giving designers control over appearance, and some reassurance that things will appear as they desire almost all of the time... but the web is (IMO) still about delivery of information, and I think users deserve to get it, even if the designer doesn't like the way it looks.

Agreed.  That's... a very bad idea.  The whole *point* of CSS and
content/style separation is that you can still get the content even if
the style is changed or missing.  Providing authors the ability to
ruin a page because some request failed is horrifying.  We can't stop
it, of course, as javascript can achieve nearly anything, but we
certainly don't have to make it easy.  You don't get to take your ball
and go home just because some element of your design isn't conveyed to
your satisfaction.

Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 23:18:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:44 UTC