Re: CSS fonts only?

[Christopher Fynn <cfynn gmx net>]

Gail Carmichael wrote:

> Hi Christopher (and others)!

> Basically what I am saying is that the enumerations defined here 
> <http://library.gnome.org/devel/pango/unstable/pango-Fonts.html>, like 
> the variant, for example, have a specific subset of values.  I just 
> happened to notice that the defined values are pretty much equivalent to 
> allowable CSS text attributes.

> In Inkscape, we use the PangoFontDescription pretty extensively.  It is 
> how font information is stored in memory while the program is running, 
> for example.  The problem is that some fonts have, say, a swash variant, 
> which cannot be described with CSS text attributes, and also cannot be 
> described with any of these enumerations in Pango in terms of the 
> PangoFontDescription.  Instead, the regular face of a font family is 
> used (as a default fall-back), and "fancy" fonts are thus not accessible 
> in Inkscape.

Gail

My guess is the best way to handle this w Pango would be through OpenType
features & lookups i.e. to include the swash variant glyphs in the base font
and have those accessed through OpenType features and lookups - which could
be either contextual or user selected. Having *separate* alternative "fancy" 
fonts with swash / small caps / etc. fonts is the old way of doing things - if 
you think about it that way, is much more limited.

For user selected / discretionary OT features the application (Inkscape)
would need some kind of interface /menu through which the user could
apply the features she wanted to.

WRT CSS - there has been some serious discussion off and on over several years 
(on the OpenType list, CSS related lists and other places) about specifying - or 
applying OpenType features through CSS.

regards

- Chris

> Hope that clarifies what I am trying to say.  It would be cool to pretty 
> much just add more values to the enumerations (and supporting code) so 
> more varieties of fonts could be described.  I wanted to know what you 
> guys thought of that possibility - is there some technical or 
> philosophical reason, as can sometimes happen, for not doing so?

> Thanks
> Gail

*** VIRUS SCANNED by FASTLINK ISP ***