- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:18:49 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[L. David Baron:] > > 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 Doh. Yes, my bad. Thanks.
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 19:19:28 UTC