- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:02:31 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Monday 2012-03-19 18:49 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > [L. David Baron:] > > > > On Friday 2012-03-16 22:19 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > > My understanding is that this was good general advice since unquoted > > > font family names may be somewhat more ambiguous in the font shorthand. > > > > Families aren't any more ambiguous in the 'font' shorthand than they are > > in 'font-family' because, in the 'font' shorthand, the family must come > > immediately after the <font-size> [ / <line-height> ]? > > part. > > > > As line-height is optional and font-size can be a keyword I'd think ambiguity > is possible e.g. if you want to use Monotype's Medium Roman: > > font: bold medium roman; > > and... > > font: bold 'medium roman'; > > > ...are not the same thing. The same issue could happen with fonts such as > 'Large Old English Riband", "Large OT", "Large" and a number of other fonts > for sale on MyFonts.com. I suspect there might even be families that start > with 'small'. > > Or am I missing something? The second one is invalid because the 'font' shorthand *requires* the size part. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 19:03:33 UTC