Re: Order in a collection

Got it.  SGTM. Thanks.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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
>
>
>
>
>