> If I’m not mistaken it should work, in theory at least, to put a generic font > family (i.e. ‘serif’, > ‘sans-serif’ etc.) _before_ your virtual font in the ‘font-family’ > declaration. Many user > agents can be set up to use a specific font per script (or codepage) for each > generic > family (or all of them), although the less common or new ones probably are > lumped > together as ‘Unicode’ or something similar. Browsers probbly wouldn’t probe > all local (sans) > serif fonts before trying the next option in the font list the CSS author > provided. >
Reading the W3C CSS specs, yes, that should work. To bring the theory into practice most likely means conducting some carefully controlled CSS experiments across the different browsers to see what actually happens ... > font-family: Code2000, serif, MyCode2000; It is convenient that Code2000 provides support for so many Unicode scripts. However, when I wear my design and typography hat and focus my attention on producing attractive web typography, to the extent that such is possible, I can only conclude that Code2000 would be my very last choice. > PS: Is this CSS discussion on topic for this list? I would hope so. > >
