I don't mind either though, it looks too long? and we have some objects that possibly has multiple values already though, we don't call it ENABLE_*. for instance, lang related things can be called like that but we don't. so I suppose we don't need it for even that purpose.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13-01-10 09:38 PM, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:behdad@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Humm. In case we may want to add code to list all features from the font in
>
> I don't think we should validate. Just pass data around. Should we call it
> OT_FEATURES or more generically FONT_FEATURES? If and when we add AAT support
> (or the existing Graphite support), those backends will use these same tags as
> far as HarfBuzz API is concerned. CSS calls them font-features, that's why I
> chose that.
>
>
> Aha. that sounds good then. let's call it FONT_FEATURES.
the future, perhaps we should call this ENABLE_FONT_FEATURES?
--
behdad
http://behdad.org/
Akira TAGOH
_______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
