Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
> Yeah, and the user who uses Lynx on Windows 95, I know I know…
No you don't. Those who use Lynx will not be affected by font fall-back
issues. In trying to ridicule my concern for the majority, you seem to fall
back to strawman arguments from the 1990s.
> I described the mechanism at work (as did fantasai and D. Baron).
You described font fall back that _should_ take place according to some
recommendations or drafts, not what happens in web browsers in general.
> Usually you don't even know if the user has the font activated or
> not... :-).
Exactly, with no need for a smiley.
> Ah, the limits of web design.
Or the circumstances where designers need to work.
>> The morale is that fallback fonts are nothing you could count on.
I wonder why you quote my conclusion and its clarifications, when you don't
comment on them at all.
Instead you throw in some CSS code without a word of English to tell what
your point is:
> @font-face {
> font-family: 'my-font';
> src: url(myfont.eot);
> src: url(myfont.woff), url(myfont.ttf);
> }
That's something completely different, with benefits and issues of its own.
It's not about fallback fonts at all, and to the extent that you use
downloadable fonts successfully, font fallback does not come into the
picture at all.
Yucca
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
