Closed gadenbuie closed 2 months ago
FWIW although I like the consistency and generality of .with
, I'll probably stick with brand-palette
and brand-theme
in Typst output as more descriptive.[^1]
Maybe we could document that brand.color.with
is effectively a "palette" of colors of the brand.color
"theme", just to tie the ideas together even if those words are no longer in the schema.
[^1]: Perhaps emitting a comment pointing users to brand.color.with
and brand.color
.
We can restructure
color
,logo
andtypography
slightly to use a common abstraction of named resources. These are user-provided values that would be added to each section via thewith
keyword, providing a clear distinction between user keyword values and the fixed brand fields. All fields controlled by brand.yml can then be hoisted up to the top level; users can reference values declared inwith
directly in any values in that section:One design principle I'd like to (try to) follow with this is that named values in
with:
could be directly specified in any of the direct fields, e.g.would be equivalent to
for any given
<value>
object.Both
color
andlogo
follow that principle already, buttypography
would have to be modified to follow this pattern (see #3). I think it's worth the effort and consideration.