Post #1807959
2026-03-08 09:44 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@letterror@typo.social 2026-03-08 10:10
@justvanrossum @Bahman Did the distinction not come from back in the day when a lot of glyphnames were afixxxx and designers needed something better?
-
@Bahman@typo.social 2026-03-08 10:26
@justvanrossum typically writing OT features is a part of production. For me that involves design decisions which could also affect shape of glyphs.
-
@slye@typo.social 2026-03-08 18:19
@justvanrossum How, then, to explain the RoboFont documentation that clearly defines “production names” and “final names”? (Which, incidentally, align with my own definitions.) https://robofont.com/documentation/topics/production-names/
-
@drj@typo.social 2026-03-09 12:11
@justvanrossum @Bahman i think part of the confusion is literally Academic. In an academic sense, there is an "image" of the font in the auteur's mind, and it is "produced" as a design visible to others (literally drawn out). In this viewpoint, the _production_ is the object that will be shown to academic peers/salons/crits (and/or the process of making that production). The Academy has no dealings with the actual business of putting fonts in files and installing them on computers (i realise that my tongue should be in my cheek for this last part, but alas, it is not). So in this world, a _production name_ is the name that would be used in discussions.