W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [css3-fonts] revised definition of font-family

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 00:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <446633677.11724353.1337068546887.JavaMail.root@mozilla.com>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> >  As with other user-defined identifiers, reserved keywords such as
> >  'inherit', 'initial' or 'default' are not permitted within
> >  unquoted font family names.  The use of these within unquoted
> >  family names must be treated as invalid, so font family names
> >  containing these keywords must be quoted.
> I think this would read better as a note. It doesn't actually
> express any new conformance requirements, it's just pointing out
> existing requirements from other specs.  Maybe something like:
> "Note: The global reserved keywords (currently 'inherit', 'initial',
> and 'default', see V&U for details) are not valid user-defined
> identifiers; attempting to use one of them will either make the
> property invalid or accidentally invoke the special behavior those
> keywords represent.  If a font's name actually includes one of those
> words, specify it as a string instead.

During the F2F, Bert stated that he thought this was a change from
CSS 2.1, that unquoted font family names like 'foo inherit' should
not be rejected as invalid.  I don't really feel strongly either way
but I'm wondering if you see a strong reason to make the use of any
keyword within a multi-word font family name invalid.


John Daggett
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 07:56:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:16 UTC