Re: [css3-fonts] @font-face matching and font-style descriptor

"Tab Atkins Jr." <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.fonts,gmane.comp.web.css.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Phinney
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Basically, I'm not at all sympathetic to a typographer/font developer
>> saying "I don't want my font used at all if it's used in a way I can't
>> control the display of", which I believe is essentially the argument
>> of the no-simulation camp.  (Correct me if there is a more nuanced
>> position I should be aware of.)
>
> Um, yeah, there is. "I don't care whose fonts they are; as a designer, I
> don't want to see fake bolds and/or fake italics showing up by accident in
> my work." This is a pretty darn common position among serious graphic
> designers, which is why the behavior in Adobe applications is the way it is.
> (It happens to be a position I share, but that's not the point.)
> The fact that most web developers have not taken this position to date is
> not unrelated to the fact that web developers have not had real control of
> fonts. There are other factors, of course.

I find it strange that "show a different font that has this variant"
is acceptable/preferable to "simulate this variant in the font I
specified", but shrug.  It's definitely not a position that I hold,
and I've been using @font-face in my work for several years.

I'd strongly desire some way to say "please simulate variants I'm not
explicitly specifying"; I don't particularly care whether this is the
default or some extra option I have to specify in @font-face.

(This could possibly be related to the floated idea of a @font-family
rule for easy grouping of fonts....)

~TJ
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.