From: Ed Trager (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 17 2010 - 10:43:57 CDT
> If Iâ€™m not mistaken it should work, in theory at least, to put a generic font family (i.e. â€˜serifâ€™,
> â€˜sans-serifâ€™ etc.) _before_ your virtual font in the â€˜font-familyâ€™ 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 â€˜Unicodeâ€™ or something similar. Browsers probbly wouldnâ€™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
> Â 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 17 2010 - 10:47:57 CDT