# Fonts Feedback

**URL:** <https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/fonts-feedback/54620>\
**Category:** Elements\
**Created:** [February 22, 2026, 4:32pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/fonts-feedback/54620 "2026-02-22T16:32:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bryanrieger](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/bryanrieger/32/34006_2.png) [@bryanrieger](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/bryanrieger)\
**Post date:** [February 22, 2026, 4:32pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/fonts-feedback/54620/1 "2026-02-22T16:32:28Z")

</div>

I’ve been using woff2 font resources in Elements and they’re generally working well, but in looking at the @font-face definitions elements produces there’s definitely room for improvement. Take the following code snippet for instance:

```auto
// an example of the font being declared
@font-face {
    font-family: 'font-6DDB028D-1BA0-4B0E-B90D-6D54FB7FCD92';
    src: url('resources/fonts/literata/text/bold.woff2') format('woff2');
    font-weight: 600;
    font-style: regular;
    font-stretch: normal;
}

// an example of the font being used
.prose-article :where(p):not(:where… {
    …
    font-family: font-6DDB028D-1BA0-4B0E-B90D-6D54FB7FCD92;
    …
}

```

If you refer to the [MDN @font-face documentation](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/At-rules/@font-face) there are a number of errors and/or bad practices in this definition.

1. The font-weight specified is 600 which is incorrect for a bold font according to the [font-weight documentation](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/At-rules/@font-face/font-weight) (it should be ‘700’ or ‘bold’). I’ve also seen regular weights defined as ‘300’, when their actual value is ‘400’.
2. Only one src: ‘url’ property is defined (….woff2) with no opportunity to provide a .woff alternative for older browsers. Technically you can also provide font in .ttf and .eof formats, but those are only used in much older browsers.
3. There is no ‘font-style: regular’… it’s ‘[normal](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/At-rules/@font-face/font-style)’.
4. Also, oblique _(not shown in this example, but seen in Elements @font-face definitions)_ isn’t equal to italic. Some fonts are designed with different character shapes for italic, whereas ‘oblique’ is often a slanting of the characters, which is a technique that is often used by browser vendors to fake an italic for typefaces that don’t provide a true italic.
5. There are no fallback fonts (ie. Arial, Georgia, etc) defined in the ‘font-family’ property which means that if a font fails to load the ‘default’ typeface may or may not properly represent the intended design (ie. sans-serif instead of serif). At least being able to specify whether a font fallback is serif or sans-serif would help in this regard.

Anyway, as it stands custom web font support in Elements technically ‘works’, but I wouldn’t say it’s following best practices, and there’s still LOTS of room for improvement - especially if you want [to attract professional web designers](https://docs.realmacsoftware.com/elements-docs/getting-involved/creator-program) to the product.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PLM](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/plm/32/31094_2.png) [@PLM](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/PLM)\
**Post date:** [February 22, 2026, 5:02pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/fonts-feedback/54620/2 "2026-02-22T17:02:07Z")

</div>

600 is semibold …

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bryanrieger](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/bryanrieger/32/34006_2.png) [@bryanrieger](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/bryanrieger)\
**Post date:** [February 22, 2026, 5:10pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/fonts-feedback/54620/3 "2026-02-22T17:10:40Z")

</div>

Which is _still_ not **bold**. 😜

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PLM](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/plm/32/31094_2.png) [@PLM](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/PLM)\
**Post date:** [February 22, 2026, 6:43pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/fonts-feedback/54620/4 "2026-02-22T18:43:11Z")

</div>

Have you tried this?

 ![bold](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/realmacsoftware1/original/3X/4/4/445a0ed3dcb42eab78068fd57d0b0d89c7195354.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bryanrieger](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/bryanrieger/32/34006_2.png) [@bryanrieger](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/bryanrieger)\
**Post date:** [February 22, 2026, 6:47pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/fonts-feedback/54620/5 "2026-02-22T18:47:59Z")

</div>

That’s not the problem, it’s the @font-facefont-face definitions generated by Elements for Resources fonts. They’re incorrect regardless of which Tailwind class is applied, and not something users can fix or workaround.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tpbradley](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/tpbradley/32/25503_2.png) [@tpbradley](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/tpbradley)\
**Post date:** [February 23, 2026, 2:33pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/fonts-feedback/54620/6 "2026-02-23T14:33:25Z")

</div>

Thanks @bryanrieger for all the detailed info, that’s really helpful!

I’ve raised a ticket so we can investigate this properly.

Cheers,  
Tom