I still think defining an array of font weight values in an array in variables.scss would be better, but whatever you guys prefer.

Primarily because I noticed in a recent project of mine that the bold font wasn't 700 like it normally is, but was 500.

Would have helped if you had expressed that view in your issue ;)

I just went for the standards

@brianteeman I clearly stated in my issue:

An array of font weights should be defined in the variables.scss with all the possible numeric keywords.

Don't get me wrong, this is better than before but could still be a little more dynamic

apologies - i must have missed it - feel free to submit your own pr for this issue if you wish

conflicts resolved

we tried to test during PBF18.

What we tested:
check file administrator/templates/atum/css/template.css

Result:
There is still
h1,
h2,
h3,
h4,
h5,
h6 {
font-weight: bold; }

h1 {
font-weight: normal; }

also in administrator/templates/atum/css/template.min.css
however, we did not find where it comes from.

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/tree/4.0-dev#how-to-get-a-working-installation-from-the-source

Did you do npm run build:css

yes, we just did build:css again - it is till with "bold" and "normal" there

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 78ec12b

Testing steps:

• after installing the patch (not in a nightly build) npm run build:css done
  -> all the changed font-weight have no more "normal" or "bold" as values, instead "400" or "700"

  ---

  _{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/21731.}

Don't know what I can tell you

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 78ec12b

Ready to Commit after two successful tests.

Can you fix conflicts here please?

I am not sure it is correct any more based on the comments above by @C-Lodder and the recent changes that @wilsonge has committed directly with CSS vars

I don't think CSS vars has any issues with this. I'd stick with using CSS vars for breakpoints and colours for now - we don't need every single variable to be exposed to users. Fixed conflicts too. If you can do Charlie's solution that would be good though

I am happy to go with any solution - if you want me to go with Charlie's approach I will do that at the weekend when I am at the sprint

@C-Lodder is this what you meant?

https://gist.github.com/sumul/2fbe259357888e8d677a

but named correctly to match the spec https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-3/#propdef-font-weight

closed see #22317