[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. :)