[whatwg] css3-fonts: New values for generic font families
contact at nickshanks.com
Sun Jul 2 07:37:19 PDT 2006
Hi Håkon, thanks for replying.
> Why not just follow the guidelines in the CSS3 font module?:
Ahh, I didn't see there were instructions on the module itself on
where to send suggestions, and it doesn't give the main author's name
(just "the CSS2 authors and Tantek…" et al).
I was on that css list a few years ago. It was full of spam (people
asking simple "how do I do x with CSS?" questions) and no-one paying
attention to my suggestions for future implementations so I abandoned
> 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?
I don't think there would be any inconvenience.
Either they can allow the user to select a font from all those
available, or it can filter down using a list of keywords such as the
ones I suggested. They could also hard-code a few common fonts that
don't get picked up by the keywords. Perhaps a combination of the
two, with filtered blackletter fonts at the top of the menu, a
divider, then all the rest. The same can go for script font,
filtering the list against keywords such as script, hand, child, pen,
> Will they have to ship fonts with browsers?
Not any more than they do currently, which is none. :-)
> 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.
I don't think there's much use for fantasy, as what exactly
constitutes a fantasy font was never clearly defined. And if cursive
is removed, it should be replaced by more descriptive variants such
as "calligraphic" and "handwritten"
> A better way to support interesting fonts is -- IMHO -- for browsers
> to start supporting TrueType Webfonts.
I have been campaigning for better @font-face support for years too,
and I will implement it in WebKit once all the more pressing
typography and CSS bugs that bother me are taken care of (like using
more than two font weights, proper small-caps and being able to
switch between lining and text numerals).
The biggest problem I see with using @font-face currently is that not
many fonts provide the correct Panose 1 numbers, making matching to a
close substitute very hard. All the concern about violating copyright
mentioned in the Mozilla bug on this rule are IMO invalid, as there
are already so many more interesting way to violate copyright than this!
By the way, if you're looking for someone to implement this and other
CSS stuff in Opera, I am currently seeking employment. I have been
having difficulty getting anywhere with Apple due to the United
States' negligible work visa quotas.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2373 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the whatwg