[css-fonts-4] Naming font-technology() supports function

[fantasai]

In https://www.w3.org/2021/10/20-css-minutes.html#r04 we resolved to add, roughly speaking, a technology() function to the src descriptor and an equivalent font-technology() function to @supports which would take keywords representing font technology capabilities to check for UA support. We also resolved to open a bikeshedding issue to see if there's a better name for the function, so this is that issue.

[svgeesus]

we resolved to add, roughly speaking, a technology() function to the src descriptor

Defined in CSS Fonts 4: 11.1. Font technologies and used in CSS Fonts 4: 4.3.1. Parsing the src descriptor

and an equivalent font-technology() function to @supports

Defined in CSS Conditional 4: 2. Extensions to the @supports rule which links to the definitions in CSS Fonts 4

We also resolved to open a bikeshedding issue to see if there's a better name for the function

For the record, I think those names are just fine. In the context of src in @font-face there is no need for the font- prefix while in the general @supports there is; that difference aside, they should be exactly the same, which they currently are. tech is tempting, and I could live with it, but technology is probably better.

[drott]

Names are fine with me, too. Opinions, @jfkthame, @litherum ?

[LeaVerou]

FWIW I agree that the name needs bikeshedding because it's too long, but I do not have any suggestions currently.
Maybe font-tech()? We do tend to avoid abbreviations, but maybe tech = technology is sufficiently established that it's ok? Still a bit too colloquial though.

[fantasai]

My suggestion would be font-ability(). Formats are also technology. (Everything we do here is technology.) I'm also OK with font-tech(), and I agree with @LeaVerou that font-technology() is too long.

[litherum]

I think ability is worse than technology, because COLR and SVG have the same ability but are different technologies. Same with shaping - morx and GSUB have the same ability but are different technologies.

[jfkthame]

Agree with Myles, I don't favor ability; I think tech[nology] is a more natural term here.

Personally, I don't think the length of the full font-technology form is a problem; clarity is good, and I'm not expecting authors to be typing large numbers of @supports font-technology(....) blocks by hand (and if they do need to, copy/paste and autocomplete are a thing....)

[LeaVerou]

I think of "ability" as referring to something a being can do and not a property of a group of bytes. Like, a font is not "able" to do anything, it's the tools that read it that are, and this function queries browser support, not font "support", i.e. you can specify techology(COLRv1) on a non-color font. It's nonsensical, but not forbidden.

[drott]

I am still okay with font-technology and font-tech, but if it needs to be something shorter, font-trait, font-kind? (Also, I am not a native English speaker.)

[litherum]

"trait" is already a term-of-art and means something else. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coretext/ctfontdescriptor/font_traits?language=objc

[svgeesus]

No seeing any proposed names that are better than the current ones. Close?

[drott]

Happy to close, I am fine with the current ones.

[svgeesus]

Agenda+ to close with no change. No better proposals were made.

[yisibl]

Non-native English users, font-tech() +1

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Naming font-technology(), and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: font-tech() and tech()

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: Naming font-technology()
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/6791
<fantasai> drott: font-technology() supports function, issue created to bikeshed the name
<fantasai> drott: a few comments discussing, no real consensus for any change of the name
<fantasai> drott: so Chris is proposing to go with font-technology() and close with no name change
<fantasai> astearns: There is the suggestion to make it shorter and be font-tech()
<lea> To everyone: when considering names, please consider both syntaxes: @supports font-technology(); and src: url(foo.ttf) technology()
<fantasai> chris: I'm fine with that, though we do tend to avoid abbreviations
<TabAtkins> fantasai: [reads Lea's comment]
<TabAtkins> fantasai: I'm okay with font-tech() and tech()
<TabAtkins> fantasai: I think technology is a little too long, and "tech" is a well-acceptabed abbrev, used as a word already. we should shorten it
<TabAtkins> fantasai: There's a comment from a Chinese user on the issue saying that for non-native English speakers, the shorter "tech" is better
<drott> no objections from me
<fantasai> astearns: proposed resolution is to go with font-tech() and tech()
<fantasai> astearns: any objections?
<lea> no objection
<jensimmons> tech is better than technology — and is a word in it's own right, not just an abbreviation
<fantasai> RESOLVED: font-tech() and technology()
<fantasai> s/technology/tech/
<fantasai> astearns: publications?
<fantasai> chris: was planning to ask for publication of fonts 4 / conditional 4
<fantasai> fantasai: wanted to split conditional 4 actually, existing feature should be in CR (REC possibly)
<fantasai> s/publication/publication next week/