[whatwg] css3-fonts: New values for generic font families

[Håkon Wium Lie]

Also sprach Nicholas Shanks:

 > I wish to submit two proposals for changes to the generic font  
 > families built into CSS. If someone could please forward these to  
 > whomever is currently working on the css3-fonts module, I would be  
 > much obliged.

Why not just follow the guidelines in the CSS3 font module?:

   Comments can be sent directly to the editor, but the archived
   mailing list www-style at w3.org (see instructions) is also open and
   is preferred for discussion of this and other drafts in the Style
   area.

 > 1) That "monospace" and it's new inverse "proportional" be  

 > 2) The addition of two new generic family classes for the Latin  
 > script, namely:
 > 
 > blackletter (including fraktur, gotisch, schwabacher, rotunda, old  
 > english, &c.)
 > uncial (including insular, irish, &c.)

While I appreciate the convenience this new functionality may have for
designers wanting to see text in (say) "blackletter", the
inconvenience for browser implementors will be disproportionately
large. Where will they find these fonts? Will they have to ship fonts
with browsers?

The current number of generic font families (5) is already stretching
it; one might argue that even "fantasy" and "cursive" should be
dropped as many systems don't offer fonts in these categories.

A better way to support interesting fonts is -- IMHO -- for browsers
to start supporting TrueType Webfonts.

  http://news.com.com/Microsofts+forgotten+monopoly/2010-1032_3-6085417.html

Cheers,

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome at opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome