- From: Shawn Ligocki <sligocki@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:13:00 +0000
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACNG_47AbWCM+7FJSRS7aGvxREF+M8m0pga1eS-z+bbyvO6uDw@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20140919_151306_637646_1614BD23)
I'm looking into adding @font-face parsing to our CSS parser and I'm trying to figure out how to represent them. It would make it much simpler if all the @font-face rules could be stored in a separate list from the rulesets. But this would only be safe if the relative order doesn't matter between @font-face rules and rulesets. Otherwise, we'd need to preserve the original ordering. For example, are the following equivalent: @font-face { ...1 } .a { ...2 } @font-face { ...3 } .b { ...4 } and @font-face { ...1 } @font-face { ...3 } .a { ...2 } .b { ...4 } no matter what the ...s contain? Or could the .a being between the two @font-faces cause the interpretation to differ? (Say only respect the font from the first @font-face rule and not the second??) I know the order of @font-face rules matter relative to each other, and the order of rulesets likewise matter relative to each other. So for example, this re-organization would clearly be wrong: @font-face { ...3 } @font-face { ...1 } .b { ...4 } .a { ...2 } because it would change the overriding behavior in some cases. But I can't find much explanation at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-fonts/#font-face-rule for whether or not order matters between @font-face and rulesets. Thanks, -Shawn
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 14:30:03 UTC