[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. :)