On 13-10-25 09:01 AM, Akira TAGOH wrote: > Hi, > > That sounds reasonable to me so that the normal weight is also default in CSS. SGTM too. > 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 > > > -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
