Hi, That sounds reasonable to me so that the normal weight is also default in CSS. Does anyone else have any objection about this change? one concern is if there are anyone who are relying on current behavior, this change will breaks it despite you get a fix. On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:42 AM, John Flatness <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was recently trying to run down a quirk in font selection, and stumbled > upon Fontconfig's pattern defaults. In particular, the one that was causing > my issue and surprise was the default for weight, which is defined as > FC_WEIGHT_MEDIUM, or 100. > > This default seems to have been the same from the initial commit, and that > time there were only defined constants for light (then defined as zero), > medium, demi-bold, bold, and black weights. > > By now, should the default weight not be FC_WEIGHT_NORMAL or > FC_WEIGHT_REGULAR, both of which are defined as 80? The specific context I > noticed this in was a font family that ships both regular and medium > weights, and without additional specification, fontconfig selects the > surprisingly-heavy medium weight. > > I'm aware I can provide my own configuration to handle my specific case, but > I'm surprised that the default here is actually heavier than the "regular" > and "normal" weight. I imagine there's some consideration here that I'm > simply not aware of, but I can't think of what that might be. > > -- > John Flatness > > (P.S.: I tried to send this message earlier, and it seemed to get eaten > somewhere along the line. Apologies if this is a duplicate for anyone.) > _______________________________________________ > Fontconfig mailing list > Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig -- Akira TAGOH _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
