- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 11:51:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Note that a COLRv1 implementation must support COLRv0, so "COLR" does make some sense. Until there is a COLRv2 which must support COLRv1 and COLRv0 and then we wish we hadn't used COLR. The point is to be able to serve a COLRv0 font to an implementation that doesn't support COLRv1 > What did you think of the versioning syntax, @svgeesus? See [above](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6329#issuecomment-855816954) Speaking of versioning there is also , in OpenType 1.9, [a v0 and v1 of CPAL](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/otspec190alpha/cpal). But I guess that isn't an issue. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6329#issuecomment-855859909 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 7 June 2021 11:52:52 UTC