Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> skribis: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:30:24PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Furthermore, unlike software packages, what matters here is the actual >> name of the font or font collection, not the “system name” or “tarball >> name.” >> Here’s a possible answer to the above questions, informally: >> • Use ‘font-FOUNDRY-FAMILY’ or ‘font-FAMILY’ or >> ‘font-FOUNDRY-COLLECTION’ or ‘font-COLLECTION’ as the name. >> Examples: ‘font-bitstream-vera’, ‘font-liberation’, ‘font-unifont’. >> • Use ‘font-.*-FORMAT’ only when there happens to be separate packages >> for separate formats. FORMAT would be the format short name, like >> ‘ttf’, ‘otf’, ‘type1’. >> WDYT, fellow nitpickers? :-) > > This sounds like quite an interesting solution - so we would completely drop > the upstream package name and only go for the font name (which would normally > be some part of the upstream package name, I suppose). > > What would be the role of FOUNDRY? Should we try to find it out for most > fonts, or would it only be there to avoid confusions for fonts such as > Garamond?
Some fonts are created by hobbyists rather than a foundry. Some of the fonts created by foundries are often referred to it using the foundry’s name, such as “Bitstream Vera”; there are also counter-examples, like Gentium, Charis, etc. (by SIL.) So, again very informally, I would suggest to use the foundry name in cases where people expect to see it, and in cases where it removes ambiguity with similarly-named fonts. What do people think? >> IMO the goal should be to find something convenient for users. >> Sometimes, maybe, there will be several valid choices for the package >> name, but that’s fine, I think. > > Maybe we could refine the rules once an ambiguity occurs and see if we can > lift it. Sure. > One suggestion: I would like to keep the names of the x.org fonts as they > are, following the software package guidelines. I think they are more software > than fonts that actual users would employ to typeset their documents. Yes, I agree. Thanks, Ludo’.
