- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Right now, 2.1 says the following about using 'inherit' in a font name: > > # The keywords 'initial' and 'default' are reserved for > # future use and must also be quoted when used as > # font names. > > This isn't strict enough, and implementations do somewhat different > things around this. See Kenny's email at > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Apr/0080.html> > where he shows several differences in implementations, where some UAs > accept 'inherit' as part of a font-name, or even as an entire > font-name in some circumstances. > > We propose tightening this up, since there's no use-case for using > unquoted 'inherit' in a font name, to: I really don't see why this is important. Non-interoperable behavior for edge cases that will never occur in practice is undesirable but I don't think it warrants much attention. You've marked the topic as a CSS 2.1 topic but I see absolutely no reason to revisit this portion of CSS 2.1. Fix it in a future spec (CSS3 Values, Fonts, whatever). > > The keywords 'initial' and 'default' are reserved for > > future use and must also be quoted when used _in_ > > font names. This is equally imprecise, it implies that only the keywords are quoted when what you mean to say is that font family names *containing* these keywords must be quoted. Cheers, John Daggett
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 06:03:17 UTC