RE: Order in a collection

Agree. While CSS fragment identifiers are no longer used (and is not a justification for retaining the original order of fonts in a collection), keeping the original font order is a good idea. So, the “Note” to justify it is no longer needed (and it’s gone now, thanks to Chris) but the normative requirement to keep the order is there to stay.

Cheers,
Vlad


From: ned@apple.com [mailto:ned@apple.com]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 12:01 PM
To: Behdad Esfahbod
Cc: Chris Lilley; WebFonts WG
Subject: Re: Order in a collection

And is is, if I’m reading <https://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#collection_dir_format> right:

A decoder, when processing a font collection, MUST recreate the same order of the nested fonts as they were in the input collection.

On Jul 10, 2017, at 3:42 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com<mailto:behdad@google.com>> wrote:

I still think WOFF2 should require that order of fonts in a collection be retained.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org<mailto:chris@w3.org>> wrote:
WOFF2 has the following note:

<div class="note" id="collection_head_note">
      <p>Retention of the font order in a font collection is required for CSS fragment identifiers to ever work.</p>
    </div>

This used to be true, but since fragment identifiers for collections now use the PostScript name instead of an integer, it is no longer true.

Accordingly, I removed that note.

--
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus
Technical Director @ W3C
W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media