Menu
▾
▴
#27 Better Handling of Fonts
Font handling in 2.2.5 is higly eccentric verging on
bugdom: Some fonts are hardcoded into the templates,
some can be changed by adjusting the mainfontface
variable, some fonts are not set at all but left to the
browser to determine.
The result can be typographic chaos if the user's
browser is set to use a serif font - article text is
serif, much of the stuff around it isn't.
I'd suggest having three font variables, all of them
optional. (Why optional? Some people think as a matter
of principle the browser should be allowed to choose
the font.)
FontBase: would be the basic default font for the whole
site
FontSmall: Would be the font for the the things
currently hardcoded as small sans-serif.
FontTitle: the font for titles in articles, fancyboxes,
and the main and organization blocks.
Ideally all font calls would use relative sizes, and
there would be at least a FontBaseSize variable to set
the base size; maybe variables for the relative sizes too?
Logged In: YES
user_id=3889
Someone else was working on a port of our main theme from
HTML 3.2 to XHTML, with content style sheets. If we were
going to do something like this, I think we might as well go
all the way, switch to XHTML or HTML 4.01, and at that point
style sheets make this and many other things much easier.
But Rob, if you want this, bounce it to me (or someone) with
whatever priority.
Logged In: YES
user_id=288856
We don't ed this for Slashdot, so I can't give this
y real priority. If an outsider submitted a nice XHTML
, we should include it. But we don't have time to
nce we don't need it.
Logged In: YES
user_id=4668
Shouldn't all this be handled by a CSS stylesheet? By all means have CSS classes as appropriate.