Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-4] Naming font-technology() supports function (#6791)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Naming font-technology()`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: font-tech() and technology()`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: Naming font-technology()<br>
&lt;fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6791<br>
&lt;fantasai> drott: font-technology() supports function, issue created to bikeshed the name<br>
&lt;fantasai> drott: a few comments discussing, no real consensus for any change of the name<br>
&lt;fantasai> drott: so Chris is proposing to go with font-technology() and close with no name change<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: There is the suggestion to make it shorter and be font-tech()<br>
&lt;lea> To everyone: when considering names, please consider both syntaxes: @supports font-technology(); and src: url(foo.ttf) technology()<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: I'm fine with that, though we do tend to avoid abbreviations<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: [reads Lea's comment]<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: I'm okay with font-tech() and tech()<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: I think technology is a little too long, and "tech" is a well-acceptabed abbrev, used as a word already. we should shorten it<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: There's a comment from a Chinese user on the issue saying that for non-native English speakers, the shorter "tech" is better<br>
&lt;drott> no objections from me<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: proposed resolution is to go with font-tech() and tech()<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: any objections?<br>
&lt;lea> no objection<br>
&lt;jensimmons> tech is better than technology — and is a word in it's own right, not just an abbreviation<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: font-tech() and technology()<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/technology/tech/<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: publications?<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: was planning to ask for publication of fonts 4 / conditional 4<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: wanted to split conditional 4 actually, existing feature should be in CR (REC possibly)<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/publication/publication next week/<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6791#issuecomment-988991249 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2021 16:54:23 UTC