update SOFT axis to close issue #2760 #2764
Conversation
| @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ fallback { | |||
| value: 50 | |||
| } | |||
| fallback { | |||
| name: "Extra Soft" | |||
| name: "SuperSoft" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't it be "Super Soft"?
What's wrong with "Extra". We use this in both the weight and width particles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See #2760 for an explanation.
At least on Mac, weights are sorted correctly, probably using OS/2 data. But, these SOFT style sub-families are part of family names, so they won't/can't sort properly without alphabetic names.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@m4rc1e I think its better to not have spaces in fallback names; I'd like to remove all of them, as we had in static fonts' style names, because then it keeps it easy to identify each particle as a unit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@davelab6 When we load the axisreg in fontbakery and gftools, we remove the spaces in the particle names. I don't want a situation where we're sending PRs with a naming schema which isn't in line with what already exists. I have no problems if we go and remove all spaces in the existing particles then merge this.
|
I chatted with Evan and he said he agreed with the idea of getting alphabetical sort when possible. I also want to remove all the spaces in fallback names |
Summary: this updates the
SOFT=100style name toSuperSoftto allow fonts to sort alphabetically in a way that is more logical & useful for users.See #2760 for details.
Question: do we mark elided style names in axis definitions? If not, should we?