Coding standards: audit a few occurrences of CSS font-weight using keywords instead of numeric values

[afercia]

Just noticed a few occurrences of font-weight: bold; or font-weight: normal; have been recently introduced in core.

As per the ​CSS Coding Standards:

Font weights should be defined using numeric values (e.g. 400 instead of normal, 700 rather than bold).

Rationale: see [37740]
Use numeric font weights instead of keywords.

When Open Sans was in use, the 300, 400, and 600 weights were loaded. 400 is the equivalent of normal; however, bold is equivalent to 700, not 600. With the move to system fonts, we need to be specific rather than relying on the lack of a 700 weight.

[afercia]

In 43018:

Coding standards: Use numeric font weights instead of keywords.

Fixes #43897.

[afercia]

Reopening for 4.9.6 consideration: some of the bold weights are used in the new Privacy Policy settings screen.

[SergeyBiryukov]

Was going to merge, but it looks like [43018] depends on the styles added in [42967] and [42978], so they need to be merged first.

[afercia]

There's one occurrence of font weight 700 in the theme details, that appears only when a theme is a child theme and should be changed to 600. See the name of the parent theme in the screenshot below:

[afercia]

In 43021:

Coding standards: Change one occurrence of font weight 700 to 600.

Props chetan200891.
Amends [43018].
See #43897.

[afercia]

Note: there are several occurrences of font weight set to normal in font shorthand declarations. Normally, they should be changed to 400 but, as far as I see, they're all related to dashicons. For example:

font: normal 20px/1 dashicons;

So I'm not fully sure they should be changed. Noticed also in few cases, the shorthand syntax misses the font weight, for example (it should fallback to the initial value normal):

font: 20px/.5 dashicons;

[afercia]

In 43041:

Coding standards: Change a few occurrences of font weight 700 to 600 in multisite signup and activate.

Props chetan200891.
Amends [43018].
See #43897.

[ocean90]

Moving to next major milestone due to the lack of significant changes that would warrant the back-port.

[SergeyBiryukov]

Anything left here?

[afercia]

Anything left here?

Haven't found other occurrences, so everything should be OK. As per the milestoning, I'm not happy to release something that goes against the coding standards, even if it's just about a bold value.

[ocean90]

Replying to afercia:

I'm not happy to release something that goes against the coding standards, even if it's just about a bold value.

Did you take a look at all the privacy code? It doesn't follow the coding standards in a few places. I'd be more concerned if something gets released which doesn't follow a11y standards, like https://core.trac.wordpress.org/browser/trunk/src/wp-admin/includes/user.php?rev=43085&marks=1352-1355,1394-1397#L1352.

[afercia]

Worth a ticket.

[afercia]

Anything left here? Seems to me everything is already in trunk.

[netweb]

Not that I can see, if anything else does pop up, opening a new ticket will work fine.

Closing this as fixed.