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

Re: [css3-fonts][cssom] proposal for revised definition of CSSFontFaceRule

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:16:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA7qVrHJ0WWPP4O_jdxejYAOXJvBTbtNLFvegtPhye7hA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Sebastian Zartner
<sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the context of @font-face rules, there's some crossover between the
>> set of descriptors defined for @font-face rules and for style rules
>> (e.g. "font-family", "font-weight", "font-style", etc.) but several of
>> descriptors are unique to @font-face rules (e.g. "unicode-range",
>> "src").  This makes use the CSSStyleDeclaration interface for
>> @font-face rules very odd.  There are also some subtle differences,
>> the "font-family" descriptor for @font-face rules only takes a
>> *single* name, not the list of multiple names allowed for the
>> "font-family" property in style rules.
> For the sake of differentiating the @font-face descriptors from the
> style rule properties are not the same and to avoid unnecessary typing
> I suggest to remove "font" from the descriptor names.
> So instead of "font-family", "font-style", "font-weight",
> "font-stretch", "font-variant" and "font-feature-settings" we'll just
> have "family", "style", "weight", "stretch", "variant" and
> "feature-settings" inside @font-face.

That doesn't seem necessary.  I think it's useful and easier to
remember if they're just the same names (but formatted in camelCase).

(I think it would have been good *originally* to just name the
descriptors "weight", "variant", etc., but we're long past that point.

Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 22:17:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:21 UTC