Re: CSS fonts only?

[Christopher Fynn <cfynn gmx net>]

Denis Jacquerye wrote:


> Swash variants is something that can be handle through OpenType
> features. Although we still need the interface and the API to apply
> them.
>
> Even when that's done there are plenty of fonts out there that have
> Swash variants, or Caption, Heading, Display, Bubble, Outline, and
> whatever exotic variant that cannot be handle with OT features. Look
> at Adobe Font Foolio for example. Some of its font families have
> Caption, Display and Subhead variants. We need a way to handle those.
> For example Adobe Jenson Pro has 4 variants for Regular. fc-list will give:
> Adobe Jenson Pro,Adobe Jenson Pro Subh:style=Subhead,Regular
> Adobe Jenson Pro:style=Regular
> Adobe Jenson Pro,Adobe Jenson Pro Disp:style=Display,Regular
> Adobe Jenson Pro,Adobe Jenson Pro Capt:style=Caption,Regular
> These have different pairs of preferred names and legacy names, yet
> are rendered as the same. Something can be fixed there.



> The OT 1.5 specifications added two more nameID to support these
> non-CSS variants, or non-weight-width-slope (non-WWS) variants, to
> make it easier by splitting them into different font families. But
> that will only take place in future fonts. People need to be able to
> use today's fonts today.

"Caption", "Heading", "Display" - these sound like names for optical variants 
designed for use at different output sizes. Something like: Caption = small 
text, Heading = large text, Display = x-large text.

Variants like "Bubble"  would need to be defined in some meaningful way. Do such 
exotic variants actually need treating as variants - rather than as completly 
separate fonts?








> Cheers,
>
> Denis Moyogo Jacquerye
*** VIRUS SCANNED by FASTLINK ISP ***