W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2015

RE: [css-fonts] font-weight-adjust

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:47:49 +0000
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a250bc5fc1e84301a53981ed7af530b0@wob-maildb-03.agfamonotype.org>
On Monday, October 19, 2015 5:51 AM Florian Rivoal wrote:

> However:
> 1) It unnecessarily reduces the choice. I don't see what's inherently wrong about pairing a font that is very dark at weight 400 with one that has a similar color at weight 700. Of course you can do poor pairings, but you can always to that anyway, regardless of weight.

There is nothing wrong in pairing a font at weight=400 with another one at weight=700, and I don’t think one needs any adjustments for it - just use the CSS @font-face rules to declare your design choices and this is it.

> 2) If you consider internationalization, some languages (e.g. CJK) have a much more limited set of fonts to choose form, due to the huge numbers of characters these languages use, and therefore the comparatively hight cost of making fonts. There may not be a font that has the feel you want at weight 600, and if you've found one that does at weight 800, being unable to use it is frustrating.

Same as above - what is it in the current CSS @font-face rules that is limiting you to declare your font choices? 
If you have two fonts that you know will work together - declare them. However, if you only have one font and expect a fallback font be used to e.g. complement the needed character repertoire (as you mentioned in your original example) - how would you know what weight adjustments are needed if you don’t know what a fallback font will be? Like you said, one font at weight 400 may look similar to another one at weight 600, but without actually _seeing_ it (and not even knowing what a fallback font will be) declaring an adjustment isn't feasible, IMO.

Thank you,

Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 10:49:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:54 UTC