Post #857676
2026-03-08 07:08 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@Bahman@typo.social 2026-03-08 09:30
@justvanrossum I chose the sensible option to me which is design process names. But the convention is the opposite nowadays. I myself would call the glyph names in the binary as “final names” if there was no existing convention.
-
@mathieureguer@mastodon.social 2026-03-08 10:44
@justvanrossum naïve question: are proper glyph names still necessary in compiled fonts? I would love for my friendly names to be final names. (GNFUL seems like a wonderful solution if we do need names to be standard)
-
@khaled@typo.social 2026-03-08 12:39
@justvanrossum Only my development files (sources, binaries) have glyph names. Distributed fonts have no glyph names at all.
-
@ryan@typo.social 2026-03-08 16:41
@justvanrossum Voted for the second option because I know what’s meant, but it always gives me pause unless used in the phrase “final production names.” I wonder if the designspace convention of “design” and “user” would be helpful here.
-
@Hilary@typo.social 2026-03-09 05:55
@justvanrossum according to Gemini "Font glyph production names are standardized, technical identifiers used in exported font files (OTF/TTF) for machine readability, ensuring compatibility across applications and supporting features like PDF text searching. They differ from "nice names" (used during design) by adhering strictly to the Adobe Glyph List (AGL) Specification, often following uniXXXX (Unicode) or specific character"