Re: Anything to discuss during our telcon tomorrow?

Cool. Hey, would #postscriptname work for any postscript name? In
particular, for accessing a named instance in a variation font?

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 2016-12-13 23:14, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
>
>
> On a related subject – there have been updates on the top-level font media
> type registration. Chris Lilley has been busy at work (thank you Chris!)
> addressing some of the issues reported by the IETF-assigned reviewer,
>
> all of them, I hope :)
>
> and the new version of the document has been created as a result. Please
> review and send you comments, if any. The details on the document
> progression can be seen at  https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel/
>
>
>
>
> Of note, the most recent couple of drafts have a new fragment syntax for
> collections (both font/collection and also font/woff2). Ken Lunde pointed
> out that the numeric fragment syntax was brittle, as new fonts are
> typically inserted rather than appended into a collection. Instead, a
> fragment syntax using the PostScript name is specified.
>
> This syntax was already in use in CSS3 Fonts, for referring to locally
> installed fonts rather than downloaded ones. For use as a fragment, the
> only complication is that six characters are allowed in PostScript names
> and disallowed in fragment identifiers. They have to be percent-escaped in
> the fragments.
>
> An additional benefit is that the syntax is more human readable. To get at
> Foo Bold in a collection (or woff2 of a collection) called bar, the syntax
> is bar.woff2#Foo-Bold for example, not bar.woff2#3 or whatever.
>
> As far as I know, no browser or html-to-pdf formatter has support for
> collections. So there is no web compat issue. The new syntax will be more
> usable, and completes what is needed for us to use collections in woff2.
>
> --
> Chris
>
>