> Non-designers may wish to see a list that looks more like:
What do you base this assumption on?
I don't see why a non-designer user wouldn't benefit from having all the styles in the same family.
Either way, the proposed families are already implemented in the OpenType 'name' table in the files.
Legacy applications/libraries can only handle 4 style variants (i.e. Regular, Bold, Italics and Bold Italics) and up-to-date applications/libraries can handle more style variants. It just seems weird to want the user to be stuck with the legacy behaviour.
Name ID 1 and 2 are for Family name, and Subfamily name (only the 4 style variants), what you refer to as non-designer's preference.
Name ID 16 is for Preferred Family name and ID 17 for Preferred Subfamily name, what you refer to as designer's preference.
Name ID 21 and 22 could also be used if there are more style variants (like Caption, Display or more fantasy like Stencil, etc.)
In 0.69, there are already name ID 1, 2, 16 and 17.
> Non-designers may wish to see a list that looks more like:
What do you base this assumption on?
I don't see why a non-designer user wouldn't benefit from having all the styles in the same family.
Either way, the proposed families are already implemented in the OpenType 'name' table in the files. libraries can only handle 4 style variants (i.e. Regular, Bold, Italics and Bold Italics) and up-to-date applications/ libraries can handle more style variants. It just seems weird to want the user to be stuck with the legacy behaviour.
Legacy applications/
See http:// www.microsoft. com/typography/ otspec/ name.htm
Name ID 1 and 2 are for Family name, and Subfamily name (only the 4 style variants), what you refer to as non-designer's preference.
Name ID 16 is for Preferred Family name and ID 17 for Preferred Subfamily name, what you refer to as designer's preference.
Name ID 21 and 22 could also be used if there are more style variants (like Caption, Display or more fantasy like Stencil, etc.)
In 0.69, there are already name ID 1, 2, 16 and 17.