- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:22:13 -0800
- To: Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com>
- Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com> wrote: > On 5 March 2013 02:34, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: >> I also think you're missing a key point about local(), it refers to a >> *single* face, not a font family (e.g. "Helvetica", "Helvetica Bold", >> "Helvetica Italic", etc.). Whatever you propose you need to sketch it >> out for a font family, not just a single face. > > I realise that. :) I never assumed any changes to the way @font-face > works, other than to allow composing even without a src property in > one rule, but where the value of font-family matches. I don't think > what I'm suggesting would affect fonts vs font families. > > The feature request to Google (and all other third-party hosts) > wouldn't just be to support unicode-range, though, would it? I still > wouldn't be able to reference one web font when defining another in a > @font-face rule, so there'd still be no way to override. The only way > is when my overriding @font-face can have a src value. What are you wanting to override, besides unicode-range? Referring back to my earlier emails, you can always "override" a particular style/weight/stretch/unicode-range for a given font name with a new font, by just defining a new @font-face with the same 'font-family' descriptor. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 22:22:59 UTC