Version: (using KDE KDE 3.5.3) Installed from: Debian testing/unstable Packages This is a request to support the @font-face attribute from CSS 3 (http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-webfonts/). This is also being discussed at Mozilla (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132). With the advent of Fontforge (http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/), FOSS fonts (http://www.openfontlibrary.org/), and large bandwidth internet connections in many places, it looks like an idea whose time has come. This feature can be for regular True Type, Open Type, or .cef (Compact Embedded Font); whichever will get the job done. Perhaps discussion can be opened up with the other web browsers (Mozilla, Opera, MS IE) to come up with a common solution.
I would rather match the MSIE @font-face implementaion than the CSS3 draft. The draft is under heavy revision, and is likely to be completely changed in the next draft. Besides there is already a wish for it somethere..
*** This bug has been confirmed by popular vote. ***
Somewhat related to #23315 which uses header <link>'s.
I believe it will be a good while before CSS3 becomes recommended, so why not just support @font-face from CSS2? ( http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-descriptions ) This has after all been a W3C Recommendation (not just draft) since May 12th 1998 MSIE also complies with this version, albeit only with .eot-fonts which can only be generated with WEFT. I do however not see any reason to target one specific font-format, as this is really the job of the font-renderer, not konqueror
CSS 2.0 has been deprecated and is no longer a recommendation
#5 untrue, 2.1 is still only a "Working Draft" ( WD : http://www.w3.org/TR/#WD ), and thus far only a "Candidate Recommendation" ( CR : http://www.w3.org/TR/#CR ) CSS3 will probably become recommendation around 2010 at the earliest - and fully supported around 2020 (if you consider current trends) 2.0 is still the lates W3C Recommendation ( http://www.w3.org/TR/#Recommendations )
No, my comment is correct. I am actually in the CSS design process. CSS 2.1 has fully replaced 2.0 even as a working draft because the naming process have been improved since the 2.0 fiasco (2.0 was rushed and is not implementable). Since 2.1 as a working draft has fully replaced 2.0, 2.0 should only be considered a predecessor to a working draft, which is not much. Notice that CSS 2.1 has also gone back from candidate rec to working draft because the process have been refined even more. CSS 3 is going to be released in several modules, and as such it makes little sense to talk about a release date for CSS 3 as a whole.
#7 this is fairly OT, but the fact remains that officially, as stated on w3.org, 2.0 is Recommended and 2.1 is not - and weather 2.1 is a WD or CR changes a bit from document to document, so I'm prepared to accept your explanation that it has been retracted as a CR back to WD, but that just further assures me that 2.0 is the latest recommended version. also note that http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ as always defaults to the latest recommended version, and if you check, that's still 2.0 all this asside, I can't claim to know if you have internally decided that 2.1 has reached the state where it has 'fully' replaced 2.0, but by definition, several stages of development (such as completed WD/CR/implementation report) are missing before it can become the official recommendation Also, it seems to me that 2.1 is mainly a subset of 2.0 that seems to mainly make it easier for software-vendors to claim 100% compatibility with latest standards - when they haven't done squat to comply with an 8 year old one - as it's more or less 2.0 minus the features most often missing in popular browsers (amongst them @font-face and text-shadow, both extremely cool features and some as of late, implemented in respectively IE and safari+konqueror - obviously, it's not impossible to implement, which I suspect is why you also find most if not all of these missing features back again in the different CSS3 modules) anyawys, unless it's really important for this particular bug, I suggest we stop this branch of dicussion right here, and if required continue via email - I can be reached on cers at geeksbynature dot dk
CSS 2 became Recommendation when the process of becoming a REC was different. Currently, to enter candidate recomendation state, specification should have 2 interoperable implementations: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr . Obviously, CSS 2 at its time was far from fulfilling this requirement. This is one of the major reasons for the long delay of CSS 2.1 - complete implementations. So CSS 2 is officially REC, but everybody @W3C would say that this is "broken" specification and CSS 2.1 is fixing it.
This is something Ich thought would be helpful: http://blogs.qtdeveloper.net/archives/2006/08/04/fun-with-fonts/
Looks like þe link has changed: http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2006/08/04/fun-with-fonts/
Webkit does support the @font-face attribute. I have just read that Firefox 3.1 will as well (I haven't tested the Betas yet). I hope that KHTML too will support it soon. This is not just a matter of aesthetics: this attribute allows web designers to control the layout of webpages in a much more precise way. It is a matter of accessibility as well: many websites use images for headers (even with the "alt" indication, this is a very bad solution); with the @font-face attribute, it becomes possible to have beautiful headers, headlines and titles in a pure text form.
I've tried to find any other bug reports / feature requests for this feature, but could only find this one. Is this feature being considered yet?
I'm sorry, this was posted on the wrong bug report. Please disregard.
Implementation of CSS3 Web Fonts have been added in khtml since KDE 4.4