On 07/13/2010 12:45 PM, Bob Rosenberg wrote: > > The problem is two fold (in my opinion). > > First is that unlike with printing use, there is no "Font of Last > Resort" fall-back. That support says to use the defined font BUT if > there are glyphs in the text which are not in the font then to > attempt to display them using the FoLR (ie: The only use of the FoLR > glyphs to display the "missing" codepoints). > > The second problem is that there is no way to request that the > fall-back be done ONLY for missing codepoints (similar to the FoLR > support). In your example above, requesting one or more glyphs that > are not in font-a makes the browser try font-b and then font-c until > a font is found that has support for ALL the requested glyphs. If > none contain all the needed glyphs (even though all the glyphs exist > in the combined list of supported glyphs), you get the browser's > default serif with "undefined codepoint glyphs" for the codepoints > not in the serif font. What I think should be looked into for the > long term is defining a CSS font-x parm that says use font-a to > display those glyphs that it supports (assuming that the font exists > - non-existence is equivalent for this purpose as does not support a > glyph) and fall-back down the list for the remaining glyphs until > every glyph has been displayed by a suggested font or a "missing > codepoint" glyph gets defaulted to.
This is wrong. Font fallback is per-character. See responses from both myself and L. David Baron. ~fantasai ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
