- From: Garret Rieger <grieger@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:35:55 -0700
- To: "w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM=OCWbg1=w8pQvKNYEroSGvfN+XrHXZPwgN-TCJm8O7Su4JXA@mail.gmail.com>
At today's meeting we discussed some possible names that might be used for the "supports" token in CSS @font-face when specifying a URL which supports progressive font enrichment. For those who haven't seen the supports syntax before: @font-face { ... src: url(myfont.ttf) format(truetype supports <technology>); } Here's the list of names for <technology> that were mentioned at today's meeting, along with my thoughts on them: - incremental - My current favourite, describes pretty well what will be happening. - progressive - Draws parallels to progressively loaded images, however may have the incorrect connotation that you get a less good very of the font at first which is later improved upon. - streaming - Possibly implies that the transferred font is not retained between uses. Also streaming doesn't quite correctly describe the operation of patch/subset. Though it does work well for range request. - augmentation - This potentially has the same issues as progressive. - enrichment - This potentially has the same issues as progressive. - partial - This potentially has the same issues as progressive. What are your thoughts? Also please add other ideas for possible names to this thread if you have any additional ones.
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2021 00:36:24 UTC