- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 20:21:06 -0700
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
How will CSS1 font weights map to actual font names? The font weights in the CSS1 spec are extra-light, light, demi-light, medium, demi-bold, bold, and extra-bold. One version of Helvetica has weights of ultra-light, thin, light, roman, medium, bold, heavy, and black. Some will map, some won't. If you spec Helvetica family medium weight, do you get roman (regular) or medium (bolder)? Given that in most fonts 'medium' is bolder than 'regular' (also called 'book' or 'roman') weight, and that there are usually more 'bolder' weights than 'lighter,' a better set of weights would be ultra-light, extra-light, light, regular, medium, demi-bold, bold, extra-bold, and ultra-bold, with regular as default. This isn't ideal, just much more likely to get a close match to the preferred weight. Some font families are very inclusive, with condensed, extended and outline versions under the same family name. The current CSS1 specification does not allow specifying these styles. Could compression and outline values be added to font-style? BTW, according to the CSS1 spec, "'italic' is commonly used to label slanted text, but the term is not appropriate for sans-serif fonts (whose slanted fonts are called 'oblique')." This is not accurate. An 'oblique' font maintains the same basic form as its roman version and is often computer-generated. An 'italic' font has been restyled and redrawn. There are oblique serif fonts and italic sans-serif fonts. David Perrell
Received on Friday, 9 August 1996 00:03:55 UTC