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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.opera.com/howcome
