Le Ven 25 octobre 2013 12:52, Akira TAGOH a écrit : > ----- Original Message ----- > | * The ID is what gnome-software uses internally, don't read too much > | into the format. > | > | * The "Parent" is supposed to be the parent font name, so for > | instance, "Lato Thin" and "Lato Black" would both have the parent of > | "Lato" > > That is in fact a long standing issue or a long-term RFE in fontconfig. > I'd manage to fix/improve it though. Also we already hide stuff like Droid fallback in fontconfig rules, it's a pity it's not been completely plumbed into rpm. Right now the fontconfig to rpm metadata exports only low-level font names not the preferred human name. And, unfortunately (++) not all font packages make the effort to unify family names like Droid does, I've noticed a resurgence of per-script font packages lately (will have to look at it more whenever personal life gaves me the possibility) > | * The "Name" is currently set at what the font provides us with, and > | we can tweak this if requires, for instance "roadstencil" can become > | "Road Stencil" I'm not sure tweaking is a good idea here. > | * The "Summary" is a one line description of the font, for instance > | "Lato is a sanserif typeface family". You only need one description > | per parent. > > Well, I have a plan to have a family class in the cache. it will be able > to generate the summary like the above automatically with it I believe. > That feature isn't yet merged into master because it requires bumping the > cache version. That would be great especially if you expose the WWS family name (after the cleanups specified by Microsoft) and not the raw family name. That would also help package reviews I fear a lot of persons do not understand what a font family is despite the documentation efforts we've made in guidelines. They just make a package by normal/bold/italic/bolditalic quartets including when the font has been artificially split upstream to workaround legacy non-linux software > | * The "Description" is a 2-3 paragraph description of the font, which > | is optional as it's not currently shown in the mockup. It's included > | here for completeness as it could be shown in the future when the user > | clicks "More info". > > Why don't you simply pick it up from the package description? it should > has enough wording and having separate metadata looks duplicate to me > though. Ideally, the package description and the store description would match upstream font metadata, unfortunately font metadata state is usually quite bad. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
