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.
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/