[Resending because Thunderbird sent the original email in HTML, which
vim.org promptly bounced. Grrr.]
Steve Hall wrote:
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 16:41 +0200, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
Steve Hall wrote:
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 00:31 +0200, Michael Schaap wrote:
I beg you, please don't hardcode Courier New!
[snip]
It's not just the proper way, it's the first thing discussed in the
specification:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-specification
It is said nowhere in that document that a generic-family should be
the only element in a font-face specification.
[snip]
In fact that W3C document mentions "selecting a font by a single
string" only to dismiss it as inappropriate because of lack of
standardization.
My point was that the generic families were designed for an obvious
reason...to fall back to something that works everywhere. Why wouldn't
we want Vim to work just this way?
Designers, not converters, should select font faces. If the converter
is going to attempt to select one, than it had better do a good job of
understanding what platform I am writing for, what fonts are available
for that platform, and selecting one that follows my intentions within
all the details of that specification.
Whatever is chosen should be compatible with CSS, allowing the designer
to specify a font for pre or #vim-pre (or whatever the class is).
--
/George V. Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.georgevreilly.com/blog
The biggest mistake is not learning from all your other mistakes.
