Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:21:10 +0100:
> On 09.02.2008 21:43:12 Justus-bulk wrote: > >> one might prefer the non-condensed "DejaVu Serif" triple since the >> font full name and the family name are in agreement, whereas they >> aren't for the condensed font. > > ...the logic should probably be: > - Generate the "family" triplet for any font of that family if it does > not exist already. > - If the triplet exists already and the family name equals the full name > then replace the triplet. OK, we agree on this one, but with the following one I apparently was not clear: >> What is the semantics of multiple family names? Is there an order of >> preference? In this case, one could change Fop to drop the condensed >> "DejaVu Serif" triple since "DejaVu Serif" is its second family name, >> whereas it is the first family name of the non-condensed font. > > The problem here is that you don't know in which order the discovered > fonts arrive for the registration I was not talking about the order in which the fonts are processed, but about the order of the individual family names of a given font. Is this order significant? Are there any formal specifications about this? If so, one could prioritize the triplets based on the rank of the family name. If there are no specified semantics about family name ranking, we should probably not worry about them until it solves a concrete problem. My particular case will be solved by the simpler "equality" heuristic. Justus --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
