- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:54:01 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
For `variations`, I agree, `variations-cff2` should clearly be separate. Multiple tables affect variations though. Not sure on a good name for the truetype-glyphs variations. For `incremental` I am unsure, particularly since there are two methods for incremental (range request, and patch-subset) and it is envisaged that some implementations might only support range request.. It isn't exactly a format (it applies to any sfnt font format) but yeah it isn't exactly a rendering technology either. Indeed incremental is **forbidden from affecting rendering**: > When a subsetted font is used to render text using any combination of the subset codepoints it must render identically to the original font. This includes any optional features that a renderer may choose to use from the original font such as hinting instructions, positioning rules, and/or glyph substitutions. > https://w3c.github.io/IFT/Overview.html#font-subset -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6864#issuecomment-989040030 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 17:54:02 UTC