Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Vit Zyka <vit.zyka@seznam.cz>]

Adam Lindsay wrote:
> 
> It's not that I'm trying to rain on your parade, it's just that I've lost
> a bit of enthusiasm for standardisation.

I generally agree with Adam, fonts are very varios. But the next Idris 
idea is nice. More intuitive then \sc, \bc, \ic, and \bic. I would vote 
for it, but ... at least \sc needs some backward compatibility :-(

>>%% small caps
>>% medium \TF
>>% bold \BF
>>% italic \IT
>>% bold italic \BI

Another discussion proposal: I will get the rest font families from 
Storm to make the support complete. So I will have to solve many similar 
problems with naming conventions. So I am interesting about some 
recommendations. What way to solve via
A) variants via \Var[...]
B) \tf, \bf, ... switches,
C) different font family.

For now I am using:
A) for extended glyph definitions and old style digits {Var[os]} (if 
they are not default in the font - in that case there might be reverse 
normal style digit variant \Var[ns?]).
B) standard 4 + small caps + symbols/ornaments designed to the font {\sy}
C) condensed, extended, medium, ...
Some comments?

Cheers,
vit