[Dylan16807]

>I didn't say it works 100% of time. (See my other comment

When you reply to 'ensures' then by default you are talking about ensuring. There are plenty of ways for hosted fonts to fail, even in supported browsers. And when you talk about fallbacks with 'at least' you have missed the point that an image format is comic sans or bust, never an inferior font.

>I did say that I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not

Being aware that you missed a joke doesn't make a joke-missing comment better.

>This is why people shouldn't down vote without leaving a reply first. :)

So you can pedantically argue about being right rather than accept that your comment wasn't as helpful as you thought? Seems like a net negative to me.

>somewhat petty

I suppose. It depends on whether you think downvotes are necessarily a rebuke.

>So basically what you are saying is you down voted me because you misread my post

I didn't downvote you. What an unfortunate misreading. ;)

[laumars]

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing:

1. I didn't say "ensures" and commenting that the context carries over from the previous comment while also arguing it's a joke that shouldn't be taken literally is just daft.

Plus, as I'd already said, images aren't 100% supported either, so the 100% figure you're pining for doesn't exist anyway.

2. My comments have at least been informative, unlike the kind of non-constructive arguing and hit-and-run moderation you seen keen on promoting.

Your compliant seems to just be that I did not replied to a joke with a joke. Personally I don't think that's enough for negative karma, but opinions obviously differ on this. :)

3. You are arguing about me being pedantic while basing your entire rebuttal on fringe cases. Does that not strike you as a little hypothetical?

4. Making the assumption that you down voted me isn't a misreading when I specifically requested those that did down vote me to discuss why. You were effectively confessing to the act. However I am grateful that someone has elelaborate on why I would have received negative reputation, even if that was from someone who was reasoning about another's motives :)

[Dylan16807]

You made a technical correction. It's just daft to say that your reply doesn't have to meet the same standards as the comment you're replying to. Joking doesn't matter when you're deliberately making a serious reply.

Image ensures that it's comic sans if it works at all.

Downvotes don't waste space, I don't see the issue. You're the one asking for meta comments.

You care way too much about karma for a single comment, you have plenty. And yes don't reply to a joke by correcting it to nobody's benefit.

"Browsers suck" is not a fringe case. And I don't think it's hypocritical to use pedantry in response to pedantry, which you started by 'correcting' a practice that works just fine here.

[laumars]

> "Browsers suck" is not a fringe case.

Eh? edit: oh, you think a sizeable market share of browsers don't support @font-face? Well you'd be wrong about that as well. Heck, even Google don't support browsers that pre-date @font-face.

> And I don't think it's hypocritical to use pedantry in response to pedantry

It is: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:hypocacy#q=define:h...

> which you started by 'correcting' a practice that works just fine here.

It wasn't a correction, it was an expansion. I wasn't trying to disprove the original comment, just offer an alternative.

You seem to make a habit of misreading my comments - which is ironic when the whole reason you're kicking off is because you felt I misread a joke.

[Dylan16807]

I was going to look for a better counter but simply typing '@font' into google autocompleted with '@font-face not working' :>

Anyway, your original comment was judged by the community to not be contributing to the conversation when you expanded or whatever you call it. So downvotes. No big deal.

[laumars]

That Google gets you developer questions such CSS properties being used incorrectly or CDNs not issuing cross domain headers. Which is easily fixable by the web site developers / sysadmins and thus isn't remotely the same thing as the web browsers themselves not supporting @font-face.

There's a great many subjects I'm ignorant on, but I do know what I'm talking about here. So you're wasting your time trying to prove that I was wrong about @font-face.

The joke point you made at least makes some sense - even if I personally think it's a petty reason on its own. But everyones judgement will differ. :)