- From: Kevin W. <null@ozforces.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:46:09 +1000
- To: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, W3c I18n Group <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
> I am sure there are good reasons for removing @font-face [2] > from CSS 2.1 font capabilities. [1]. Probably only because there were no implementations of it at all (AFAIK), and it was deemed too much work for not enough gain. Leaving it in the spec wouldn't have really encouraged UAs to support it. It's still in CSS3 though. > 1) Do I understand correctly that in losing @font-face there is no > longer a way to specify the url for fonts Well we've never had an implementation of it. If a UA wants to support it, they still can, as it's still in the CSS3 spec. > I have a concern that this impacts users of minority languages more than > others. I imagine if you want/need to read in a minority script, you would already have the required font(s). -- Kevin W :-) Opera/CSS/webdev blog: http://trats.ozforces.com.au/ Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 01:49:29 UTC