search

googlefonts / variable-components-spec

9 stars 0 forks source link

Clarify: The base glyph ID. This specifies which glyph we are referencing. #7

Closed PeterCon closed 3 years ago

PeterCon commented 3 years ago

Here and elsewhere you use "base glyph", which is not a term used in the OT 'glyf' chapter when discussing composites. It would help if you clarified. In this particular instance, it's not clear if what is meant is the glyph ID of the composite being assembled or of a component used in the composite.

PeterCon commented 3 years ago

I note that the term "base glyph" does occur in discussion of composites in the gvar table, but in that instance it is being used in the sense used by Unicode or in GPOS (i.e., not a combining mark).

JeremieHornus commented 3 years ago

Here, 'base glyph' is the actual glyph that is used as a component by a composite.

I understand this may be misleading as 'base glyph' wording is used with different meaning elsewhere in the OT spec. How would you name this?

justvanrossum commented 3 years ago

Yeah, we've been struggling with the terminology, and this should be improved.

I tend to use the term "base glyph" as follows:

But if that's ambiguous, it should be changed.

PeterCon commented 3 years ago

For purposes of this document, using "base glyph" would be fine, and I think it's helpful to distinguish between a glyph and reference to the glyph as a component. Just clarify. Perhaps before the Proposal overview section and a short Terminology section?

Another terminology difference is that the OT spec generally uses "variation space" where you have "designspace", though it treats "variation space" as a short form for "design-variation space' (see Terminology. But I don't think there's any ambiguity about what is meant, so that is fine. But if you did add a terminology section, you could point out that relationship.

justvanrossum commented 3 years ago

Thanks! I think we can switch to "variation space". A terminology section is a good suggestion.