Re: Anything to discuss during our telcon tomorrow?

On 2016-12-14 15:23, Roderick Sheeter wrote:
> Cool. Hey, would #postscriptname work for any postscript name? In 
> particular, for accessing a named instance in a variation font?
Huh, interesting. I hadn't thought about that one!

I think the plan is to access anywhere along an axis by putting the axis 
values on the @font-face descriptors. So named instances are not privileged.

Would non-variation-aware processors be able to get at named instances? 
(for TrueType glyhs - clearly they would not be able to for CFF2)?

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