New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Check NAME id 5 (version) is correct #553

Closed
davelab6 opened this Issue Jun 24, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

3 participants
@davelab6
Member

davelab6 commented Jun 24, 2015

As per google/fonts#63 fb must check the NAME id 5 string value follows the pattern Version X.Y

  • X is an int, 1+
  • Y is an int, 0+
@adrientetar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@adrientetar

adrientetar Jun 24, 2015

Contributor

Although three numbers is conventionally used these days, it wasn’t always the case and spec says any numbers count is compliant for version minor. Also semicolon is not a requirement, anything that’s not a number terminates the number string. Termination is also optional.
What should really be enforced is Version X.Y where X and Y are any number of integers. If anything follows in the string that’s not numbers, it is ignored for the test.

Contributor

adrientetar commented Jun 24, 2015

Although three numbers is conventionally used these days, it wasn’t always the case and spec says any numbers count is compliant for version minor. Also semicolon is not a requirement, anything that’s not a number terminates the number string. Termination is also optional.
What should really be enforced is Version X.Y where X and Y are any number of integers. If anything follows in the string that’s not numbers, it is ignored for the test.

@davelab6

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davelab6

davelab6 Jun 26, 2015

Member

I agree, updated

Member

davelab6 commented Jun 26, 2015

I agree, updated

@vitalyvolkov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vitalyvolkov
Contributor

vitalyvolkov commented Jun 27, 2015

@davelab6 done

@davelab6

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davelab6

davelab6 Feb 2, 2016

Member

@adrientetar since the head table doesn't allow for MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH I think a MAJOR.MINOR numbering scheme is best.

Member

davelab6 commented Feb 2, 2016

@adrientetar since the head table doesn't allow for MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH I think a MAJOR.MINOR numbering scheme is best.

@davelab6 davelab6 closed this Feb 2, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment