- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:39:55 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 21/5/12 19:13, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bert Bos<bert@w3.org> wrote: >> On May 18, 2012, at 08:34, John Daggett wrote: >>> Both Tab and Elika feel that any unquoted name that includes >>> keywords like 'inherit' should be invalid, so declarations like >>> the ones below would be invalid: >>> >>> font-family: foo inherit; >>> font-family: inherit foo; >> >> I don't see any ambiguity in the spec about these. They are valid family names. Some real-world examples would be: >> >> font-family: Microsoft Sans Serif >> font-family: Schoolhouse Cursive B > > I don't understand. Neither of your examples have global keywords in > them, so they don't seem to be relevant. IMO, a declaration such as font-family: poetica supp initial swash capitals; should be just as valid as font-family: microsoft sans serif; or font-family: times new roman; JK
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 21:40:43 UTC