Re: [ft-devel] Major bug with varfonts named instances when avar table present

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> It's fully OK to restrict the possible indices *for this specific
>> case* to 6, 256-32767, and 0xFFFF.
> 
> What do you mean "fully OK to restrict"?  Do you think the spec
> saying so stops font developers from using other numbers?

Yes.  Who wants to use, say, the copyright notice as the name of a
named instance?  Allowing this is completely insane!  Any font
validation tool must catch that.

> I'm trying to minimize pain for the consumers of the API.

What API?

>> > I'll ask Peter to remove it.  Just because the spec says so,
>> > doesn't mean fonts wouldn't do otherwise.
>>
>> I don't understand why you want that.
> 
> Because such requirements are unnecessary, and only make spec longer
> and enforcement harder without gaining anything.

I still believe we are miscommunicating.  Name ID values < 256 have a
fixed meaning, right?  Of those values only index 6 (the PostScript
name) makes sense for named instances.


    Werner