RE: Possible Names for the "supports" token for PFE

I am fine with “incremental” in this context.

I *think* we still need to consider whether we want to keep PFE as a technology name or pick the new name being something like “Incremental Font <descriptive_noun_goes_here>”

Vlad

 

 

From: Garret Rieger [mailto:grieger@google.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 7:36 PM
To: w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org) <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Possible Names for the "supports" token for PFE

 

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.