Never mind. I'll push as is. On 13-01-14 08:17 PM, Akira TAGOH wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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> > > <mailto:behdad@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:behdad@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Humm. In case we may want to add code to list all features from the font in > the future, perhaps we should call this ENABLE_FONT_FEATURES? > > -- > behdad > http://behdad.org/ > > > > > -- > Akira TAGOH -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
