Re: Anything to discuss during our telcon tomorrow?

Not unambiguously though, as Jonathan noted. Each font in a collection can
have the same names or they could share 'name' completely. Clearly we want
myfont.ttc#index#postscriptname and ... can we collect collections?

It's a pity because #postscriptname-of-instance does seem nicer than having
to list axis positions. However, #postscriptname that doesn't actually
match all the things you can give postscript names seems a tad sketchy.
#postscriptname[index within things having that name]!


On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Ned Holbrook <ned@apple.com> wrote:

> Named instances can also specify a PostScript name, which would allow
> selection even within a collection.
>
> On Dec 14, 2016, at 1:51 PM, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 14/12/2016 21:01, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> I was going to say it should: named instances should be available by name.
> But there's a complication with that. In principle, you could have a
> collection containing multiple variation fonts, and multiple named
> instances within each of them. Those names might not be unique. So it'd be
> perfectly reasonable (I think) to have:
>
>  MyFamily.ttc
>    face: MyFamily-Upright
>      instances: Light, Regular, Bold, Black
>    face: MyFamily-Italic
>      instances: Light, Regular, Bold, Black
>
> as instance names are meaningful only within a single (variation) face.
>
> Therefore, while I think it is useful to provide a means to access named
> instances (without having to discover and specify their actual variation
> coordinates), this needs to be distinct from the use of the PostScript name
> to select a face within a collection.
>
>
> Would non-variation-aware processors be able to get at named instances?
> (for TrueType glyhs - clearly they would not be able to for CFF2)?
>
>
> I wouldn't expect so. A named instance is just a name for a specific set
> of variation-axis values; but to apply those values, the rasterizer needs
> to know how to process variations.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org
> <mailto:chris@w3.org <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.
>
>
> There is a downside to using PS names to identify fonts within a
> collection, though: it requires the UA to decode/parse all the faces in
> order to look at their names. The numeric index allows a UA to process only
> the single face that is actually being requested.
>
> JK
>
>
>    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
>
>
>