Re: CSS support for font collections

We talked about this with John Daggett and Jonathan Kew before.  From CSS's
point of view this is unambiguously specified [0]:

Fragment identifiers are used to indicate which font to load. If a
container format lacks a defined fragment identifier scheme,
implementations should use a simple 1-based indexing scheme (e.g.
"font-collection#1" for the first font, "font-collection#2" for the second
font).

src: url(fonts/simple.woff);   /* load simple.woff relative to
stylesheet location */
src: url(/fonts/simple.woff);  /* load simple.woff from absolute location */
src: url(fonts.svg#simple);    /* load SVG font with id 'simple' */




[0] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-3/


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Roderick Sheeter <rsheeter@google.com>
wrote:

> Unfortunately I don't believe the syntax has been formally agreed on and
> no browser I'm aware of supports it. I think the best we can do is
> implement a test based on the explicit assumption (perhaps we should note
> in test plan?) that the #N syntax will work.
>
> Or drop the test. WG ... thoughts?
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny@eglug.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I’m trying to implement:
>> https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustLo
>> adFontCollection
>>
>> But no UA supports font collections, which has been discussed several
>> times before but I’m not sure what the conclusion is. Particularly, how
>> should individual fonts inside the collections be referred to? Fragment
>> identifiers are suggested here, but I’m not sure how widely agreed upon
>> is it:
>> https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/commit/b47e71a1604
>> 0ea7d4e837287b968dd80f61caa71
>>
>> Regards,
>> Khaled
>>
>>
>